1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.
2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.
3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.
I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.
A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.
The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
I like that, a gutsy call.
However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
The scope for the anti-Tory vote become much more efficient on its own is limited. They start with 317 seats in which they won 47.5% or more of the vote. Only once (Newcastle-under-Lyme, 2017) have the Tories hit that percentage and lost since 1979.
Okay, so boundary changes make this difficult to assess (the cities seat is being split up, etc.), but the Tory vote needs to be eroded in most of these for them to come into play.
Interesting list. Only 20 Tory seats won with less than 45%, and therefore susceptible to tactical voting if the Con share stays the same.
I can't see Starmer directly winning over many socially conservative voters directly from the Tories in these seats although I can see some 2019 Tory voters staying at home. I would be surprised if he had any chance of winning some red wall seats like Bolsover or even Leigh but some seats towards the bottom of the list (which I do not class as Red Wall seats) like Bury N, Dewsbury and Peterborough I would say are actually pretty likely to go back to Labour at the next election (of course we don't know about boundary changes etc).
Some seats also not on this list like Keighley I would say Labour also has a good chance despite the Tory share being high in 48% as the demographics are similar to Batley and Spen.
West Yorkshire in particular is interesting as there is such a wide potential range of outcomes and Labour still has to guard against a few extra 'Hartlepools' happening like Yvette Cooper and Jon Trickett's seats.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?
Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?
Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.
I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.
To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
Agree, and, unusually, disagree with Cyclefree. There is a massive overlap in English law between torts (wrongs in civil law) and crimes. If our courts wanted to limit civil cases to those which were not criminal it would say so. It doesn't, and it shouldn't.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them
Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful
The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?
Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
Co-conspirators clause bottom of page 5. I'd have said the law of privity was rather uncomplicated - if you aren't a party you can't enforce terms even explicitly for your benefit. I suppose epsteins estate could intervene but good luck with that.
Maxwell's right to rely on the NPA has bee expressly rejected, apparently on privity grounds
Rape victims have few enough rights that we can afford to reduce them by removing the right to sue. Your harks back to a pre modern justice age is my has been established law since way before Magna Carta.
Thanks.
Rape victims have the right to make an allegation to the police and have it properly investigated. That is, frankly, the right they need.
Has this been done? If so, what investigation has been done? I can well believe the police doing the square root of bugger all. I just don't know.
As for the privity point, yes this seems a very technical and unattractive argument to run, as well as likely unsuccessful.
I would not remove the right to sue. I just think this is a matter which should more properly be determined by the criminal courts following a proper investigation, if there is sufficient evidence in which a jury properly directed could convict. Rape is a serious crime - and if someone is guilty of it they should go to prison. Not be allowed to get away with paying some money. We all have an interest in seeing such matters dealt with properly.
Allowing someone to pay money as a pay-off is frankly another way of allowing them to pay for sex. Just paying later and rather more than in advance.
They have the right to both avenues of justice and good luck to all victims if they wish to proceed under both avenues.
Prosecutors in Manhattan have long been wanting to speak to Prince Andrew. If he won't speak to them, then I don't see why she should lose her right to civil damages as well as criminal justice.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
This is all in your head.
Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.
It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings
It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent
De-humanising your opponent, is as old as the first time a chimp fixed up a tree branch to hit another chimp with it.
Hence the 2-Minutes-Hate stuff some in the Labour party go for re Tories.
Or the Black Blok stuff about "banksters"
It's absolutely fatal to your political cause if you actually start believing in your own propaganda.
It is equally dangerous to fail to realise that, sometimes, people believe their own propaganda.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them
Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful
The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
I might regret asking, but what is a 'HTG'?
Given the context, I'm reluctant to google it on a work VPN...
Leon seems to want to define it as Hot Teenage Girl.
Yep, I regret asking... But thanks anyway.
When certain people on this site are more perverted than Urban Dictionary then it really shows how far into the sewer certain people are going.
As a father of girls, I find this whole discussion really disturbing and uncomfortable.
Piss off.
As a descendant of people I find any reference to death on this forum really disturbing and uncomfortable, because a large proportion of my ancestors have died. I can't see what paraphilia you detect in a mature male fancying hot teenage girls btw, but perhaps they should all be swathed in yards of black material to be on the safe side?
Oh piss off yourself.
I've never suggested women should have to cover up to not be objectified. If elderly men gawking at and objectifying young women is creepy then the onus should be on the men to be less creepy - not the women to have to change.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?
Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?
Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.
I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.
To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
But there had been a criminal process before the civil suit was brought.
Anyway, I am unclear as to what criminal process there has been in either the U.K. or the US. My understanding is that in the US the authorities want to speak to Andrew as a possible witness in relation to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I don't know whether they are investigating criminal allegations against him.
And in the U.K. I am unaware of any criminal investigation against him. One of the allegations is of a sexual assault in London.
The other problem is that if criminal allegations were brought, the fact that the principal witness has a financial interest does rather risk undermining her evidence.
Look: forget Andrew. Imagine if Worboys had been able to pay off his victims but stay as a taxi driver and continue raping. Would that have been better than him being eventually convicted and put in prison?
The answer to the failings of the criminal authorities is to make them better not abandon the criminal process altogether.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
This is all in your head.
Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.
It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings
It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent
De-humanising your opponent, is as old as the first time a chimp fixed up a tree branch to hit another chimp with it.
Hence the 2-Minutes-Hate stuff some in the Labour party go for re Tories.
Or the Black Blok stuff about "banksters"
It's absolutely fatal to your political cause if you actually start believing in your own propaganda.
It is equally dangerous to fail to realise that, sometimes, people believe their own propaganda.
True. Mein Kampf is a good example. Hitler wrote an entire tract about Jew-hatred in 1923, then sensible Germans nervously laughed it off, said ‘oh he doesn’t really believe that nonsense propaganda’ and voted for him years later.
A tragic mistake. He really believed it
We’re seeing the same with the ‘teletubby’ Taliban now. They haven’t changed. They believe in sharia and say so. And they are whipping women in the streets. Again
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
This is all in your head.
Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.
It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings
It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent
Absolutely. I've made it all up. Nobody voted Brexit to get rid of the foreigners in their midst. All those TV and radio vox pops and phone ins where people say that didn't happen. That Farage "Breaking Point" poster is a figment of my deranged imagination.
Given that you are a Brexiteer who voted to LEAVE, an eternal period of silence from you on this issue would be welcome.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them
Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful
The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
Oh sure. I get that. It was the suggestion that being multilingual and having foreign parents is a new thing I was commenting on.
Many of those at the Met Gala were appallingly badly dressed, though . Really quite hideous. Outstandingly vulgar. And the make up was ghastly. Very very few had any beauty or elegance. So much money, so much primping - and to so little effect.
It really isn't hard to look good. Having a full length mirror helps. Also an Italian mother.
Just last week a designer friend of mine saw a photo of me at my wedding and stated that I looked like Audrey Hepburn. Which is (a) the first time this has been said and (b) brought some small cheer in what has been a dismal few weeks.
But then I also got my first spam "I've seen you masturbating on the internet. Please pay money to my Bitcoin account or else" mail. It's a funny old world.
(PS I don't and I didn't.)
Given the ubiquity of smart home devices, added to camera-equipped laptops controlled by work, there must be many people inadvertently masturbating (or more) on the internet. It can't just be Matt Hancock.
This is a disturbing truth, but probably still true (to some extent) nonetheless.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
This is all in your head.
Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.
It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings
It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent
De-humanising your opponent, is as old as the first time a chimp fixed up a tree branch to hit another chimp with it.
Hence the 2-Minutes-Hate stuff some in the Labour party go for re Tories.
Or the Black Blok stuff about "banksters"
It's absolutely fatal to your political cause if you actually start believing in your own propaganda.
It is equally dangerous to fail to realise that, sometimes, people believe their own propaganda.
True. Mein Kampf is a good example. Hitler wrote an entire tract about Jew-hatred in 1923, then sensible Germans nervously laughed it off, said ‘oh he doesn’t really believe that nonsense propaganda’ and voted for him years later.
A tragic mistake. He really believed it
We’re seeing the same with the ‘teletubby’ Taliban now. They haven’t changed. They believe in sharia and say so. And they are whipping women in the streets. Again
For sure, although the Nazis prove my point too. They lost because their leaders actually believed in the rubbish they espoused. The Japanese High Command expressed it well when they said "We were guilty of subjectivity."
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
Co-conspirators clause bottom of page 5. I'd have said the law of privity was rather uncomplicated - if you aren't a party you can't enforce terms even explicitly for your benefit. I suppose epsteins estate could intervene but good luck with that.
Maxwell's right to rely on the NPA has bee expressly rejected, apparently on privity grounds
Rape victims have few enough rights that we can afford to reduce them by removing the right to sue. Your harks back to a pre modern justice age is my has been established law since way before Magna Carta.
Thanks.
Rape victims have the right to make an allegation to the police and have it properly investigated. That is, frankly, the right they need.
Has this been done? If so, what investigation has been done? I can well believe the police doing the square root of bugger all. I just don't know.
As for the privity point, yes this seems a very technical and unattractive argument to run, as well as likely unsuccessful.
I would not remove the right to sue. I just think this is a matter which should more properly be determined by the criminal courts following a proper investigation, if there is sufficient evidence in which a jury properly directed could convict. Rape is a serious crime - and if someone is guilty of it they should go to prison. Not be allowed to get away with paying some money. We all have an interest in seeing such matters dealt with properly.
Allowing someone to pay money as a pay-off is frankly another way of allowing them to pay for sex. Just paying later and rather more than in advance.
They have the right to both avenues of justice and good luck to all victims if they wish to proceed under both avenues.
Prosecutors in Manhattan have long been wanting to speak to Prince Andrew. If he won't speak to them, then I don't see why she should lose her right to civil damages as well as criminal justice.
My understanding is that they want to speak to him as a witness re Maxwell not as a potential defendant. But I may be wrong on that.
Anyway let's see. The whole thing is quite unedifying. My position is simply that rapists should not be allowed to stay free by paying women off. If there is evidence of a crime they should be charged and face the proper penalty if convicted.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
So she should be spending $30K on a ball ticket (and then we have the dress).
Woman of the People!
Actually, if she wants to do that, fine. But she can stop moralising and telling the rest of us how she is so much a better person.
Socialist girls must NOT look glam and go to parties. It's just not right!
La Raducanu is presumably now a capitalist ...
She's between 18-24 years old and so statistically more likely to lean Labour than not; however, we have no evidence of her politics.
She could be straight down the road or a capitalist, as you say, given her parents occupation.
There is some evidence from her modest Twitter feed. She is happily royalist - fervently retweets likes from Princess Kate (PBUH) - and a patriotic English football fan. And loves F1 (not very Green)
Given her background I’d say - FWIW in one so young - she’s a classic socially liberal but politically centre-right grammar school girl.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?
Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?
Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.
I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.
To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
But there had been a criminal process before the civil suit was brought.
Anyway, I am unclear as to what criminal process there has been in either the U.K. or the US. My understanding is that in the US the authorities want to speak to Andrew as a possible witness in relation to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I don't know whether they are investigating criminal allegations against him.
And in the U.K. I am unaware of any criminal investigation against him. One of the allegations is of a sexual assault in London.
The other problem is that if criminal allegations were brought, the fact that the principal witness has a financial interest does rather risk undermining her evidence.
Look: forget Andrew. Imagine if Worboys had been able to pay off his victims but stay as a taxi driver and continue raping. Would that have been better than him being eventually convicted and put in prison?
The answer to the failings of the criminal authorities is to make them better not abandon the criminal process altogether.
One issue in the UK is that the girls were 17 IIRC so unless assault or prostitution are involved, no crime has been commited
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
This is all in your head.
Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.
It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings
It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent
Absolutely. I've made it all up. Nobody voted Brexit to get rid of the foreigners in their midst. All those TV and radio vox pops and phone ins where people say that didn't happen. That Farage "Breaking Point" poster is a figment of my deranged imagination.
I have no direct experience of being on a council-house waiting list, but I can imagine if you are, the thought of legitimately limiting the number ahead of you on the list is appealing. Limiting migration is about the one legitimate way of doing that. Say you are a 4th lietenant on the Titanic and your lifeboat is full. Is it racist to refuse admission to any further passengers who happen to be black?
And stop imputing motive. You have just moved house (if you started in Rochdale) from a place with 20% Asian population to one which is pretty much pure white. I wouldn't in a million years have the bad manners to draw any conclusion about your motives. Perhaps you should extend the same courtesy to Leave voters (of whom im not one btw).
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
The only way I can make sense of that is if you see some occupations as exclusively performed by foreigners.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
So she should be spending $30K on a ball ticket (and then we have the dress).
Woman of the People!
Actually, if she wants to do that, fine. But she can stop moralising and telling the rest of us how she is so much a better person.
Socialist girls must NOT look glam and go to parties. It's just not right!
La Raducanu is presumably now a capitalist ...
Raducanul. Romanians put the "the" at the end. (Like Vlad Dracul, Vlad the Dragon) Although I'm not sure you can mix a masculine ending and feminine article.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
Co-conspirators clause bottom of page 5. I'd have said the law of privity was rather uncomplicated - if you aren't a party you can't enforce terms even explicitly for your benefit. I suppose epsteins estate could intervene but good luck with that.
Maxwell's right to rely on the NPA has bee expressly rejected, apparently on privity grounds
Rape victims have few enough rights that we can afford to reduce them by removing the right to sue. Your harks back to a pre modern justice age is my has been established law since way before Magna Carta.
Thanks.
Rape victims have the right to make an allegation to the police and have it properly investigated. That is, frankly, the right they need.
Has this been done? If so, what investigation has been done? I can well believe the police doing the square root of bugger all. I just don't know.
As for the privity point, yes this seems a very technical and unattractive argument to run, as well as likely unsuccessful.
I would not remove the right to sue. I just think this is a matter which should more properly be determined by the criminal courts following a proper investigation, if there is sufficient evidence in which a jury properly directed could convict. Rape is a serious crime - and if someone is guilty of it they should go to prison. Not be allowed to get away with paying some money. We all have an interest in seeing such matters dealt with properly.
Allowing someone to pay money as a pay-off is frankly another way of allowing them to pay for sex. Just paying later and rather more than in advance.
They have the right to both avenues of justice and good luck to all victims if they wish to proceed under both avenues.
Prosecutors in Manhattan have long been wanting to speak to Prince Andrew. If he won't speak to them, then I don't see why she should lose her right to civil damages as well as criminal justice.
My understanding is that they want to speak to him as a witness re Maxwell not as a potential defendant. But I may be wrong on that.
Anyway let's see. The whole thing is quite unedifying. My position is simply that rapists should not be allowed to stay free by paying women off. If there is evidence of a crime they should be charged and face the proper penalty if convicted.
That's a different point, and covered by making NDAs non-valid. Rapists should pay both in monetary and in criminal sanction terms, not either/or.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
Co-conspirators clause bottom of page 5. I'd have said the law of privity was rather uncomplicated - if you aren't a party you can't enforce terms even explicitly for your benefit. I suppose epsteins estate could intervene but good luck with that.
Maxwell's right to rely on the NPA has bee expressly rejected, apparently on privity grounds
Rape victims have few enough rights that we can afford to reduce them by removing the right to sue. Your harks back to a pre modern justice age is my has been established law since way before Magna Carta.
Thanks.
Rape victims have the right to make an allegation to the police and have it properly investigated. That is, frankly, the right they need.
Has this been done? If so, what investigation has been done? I can well believe the police doing the square root of bugger all. I just don't know.
As for the privity point, yes this seems a very technical and unattractive argument to run, as well as likely unsuccessful.
I would not remove the right to sue. I just think this is a matter which should more properly be determined by the criminal courts following a proper investigation, if there is sufficient evidence in which a jury properly directed could convict. Rape is a serious crime - and if someone is guilty of it they should go to prison. Not be allowed to get away with paying some money. We all have an interest in seeing such matters dealt with properly.
Allowing someone to pay money as a pay-off is frankly another way of allowing them to pay for sex. Just paying later and rather more than in advance.
They have the right to both avenues of justice and good luck to all victims if they wish to proceed under both avenues.
Prosecutors in Manhattan have long been wanting to speak to Prince Andrew. If he won't speak to them, then I don't see why she should lose her right to civil damages as well as criminal justice.
My understanding is that they want to speak to him as a witness re Maxwell not as a potential defendant. But I may be wrong on that.
Anyway let's see. The whole thing is quite unedifying. My position is simply that rapists should not be allowed to stay free by paying women off. If there is evidence of a crime they should be charged and face the proper penalty if convicted.
I completely agree that rapists shouldn't be allowed to stay free by paying women off, nobody is saying they should, but nor should rape victims be denied civil restitution just because the criminal justice system is flawed.
Both systems of justice rightly exist and both are rightly available in full. To deny either, denies the victims justice.
Plus of course there's an issue of differing levels of proof being required. If a rape can be proven "on balance of probabilities" but not "beyond all reasonable doubt" then it may be possible for a victim to get civil but not criminal justice. Should that be denied to her, just because there's a "reasonable" (even if unlikely) doubt?
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
This is all in your head.
Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.
It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings
It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent
Absolutely. I've made it all up. Nobody voted Brexit to get rid of the foreigners in their midst. All those TV and radio vox pops and phone ins where people say that didn't happen. That Farage "Breaking Point" poster is a figment of my deranged imagination.
Given that you are a Brexiteer who voted to LEAVE, an eternal period of silence from you on this issue would be welcome.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?
Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?
Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.
I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.
To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
But there had been a criminal process before the civil suit was brought.
Anyway, I am unclear as to what criminal process there has been in either the U.K. or the US. My understanding is that in the US the authorities want to speak to Andrew as a possible witness in relation to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I don't know whether they are investigating criminal allegations against him.
And in the U.K. I am unaware of any criminal investigation against him. One of the allegations is of a sexual assault in London.
The other problem is that if criminal allegations were brought, the fact that the principal witness has a financial interest does rather risk undermining her evidence.
Look: forget Andrew. Imagine if Worboys had been able to pay off his victims but stay as a taxi driver and continue raping. Would that have been better than him being eventually convicted and put in prison?
The answer to the failings of the criminal authorities is to make them better not abandon the criminal process altogether.
One issue in the UK is that the girls were 17 IIRC so unless assault or prostitution are involved, no crime has been commited
Yes, contrary to what some have claimed the age of consent for these alleged crimes is 18 in New York, not 17.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
Co-conspirators clause bottom of page 5. I'd have said the law of privity was rather uncomplicated - if you aren't a party you can't enforce terms even explicitly for your benefit. I suppose epsteins estate could intervene but good luck with that.
Maxwell's right to rely on the NPA has bee expressly rejected, apparently on privity grounds
Rape victims have few enough rights that we can afford to reduce them by removing the right to sue. Your harks back to a pre modern justice age is my has been established law since way before Magna Carta.
Thanks.
Rape victims have the right to make an allegation to the police and have it properly investigated. That is, frankly, the right they need.
Has this been done? If so, what investigation has been done? I can well believe the police doing the square root of bugger all. I just don't know.
As for the privity point, yes this seems a very technical and unattractive argument to run, as well as likely unsuccessful.
I would not remove the right to sue. I just think this is a matter which should more properly be determined by the criminal courts following a proper investigation, if there is sufficient evidence in which a jury properly directed could convict. Rape is a serious crime - and if someone is guilty of it they should go to prison. Not be allowed to get away with paying some money. We all have an interest in seeing such matters dealt with properly.
Allowing someone to pay money as a pay-off is frankly another way of allowing them to pay for sex. Just paying later and rather more than in advance.
They have the right to both avenues of justice and good luck to all victims if they wish to proceed under both avenues.
Prosecutors in Manhattan have long been wanting to speak to Prince Andrew. If he won't speak to them, then I don't see why she should lose her right to civil damages as well as criminal justice.
My understanding is that they want to speak to him as a witness re Maxwell not as a potential defendant. But I may be wrong on that.
Anyway let's see. The whole thing is quite unedifying. My position is simply that rapists should not be allowed to stay free by paying women off. If there is evidence of a crime they should be charged and face the proper penalty if convicted.
Clearly in an ideal world it would be preferable if rapists are not allowed to stay free by paying women off.
From a pragmatic viewpoint however, with rape being difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt means there is a often a difference between a rapist (criminal) and rapist (civil). The underlying problems are rape happening in the first place, and then that it is very hard to prove. With criminal justice often not available as a result of that, civil financial justice has a role to play, even if it is unsatisfactory.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?
Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?
Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.
I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.
To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
But there had been a criminal process before the civil suit was brought.
Anyway, I am unclear as to what criminal process there has been in either the U.K. or the US. My understanding is that in the US the authorities want to speak to Andrew as a possible witness in relation to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I don't know whether they are investigating criminal allegations against him.
And in the U.K. I am unaware of any criminal investigation against him. One of the allegations is of a sexual assault in London.
The other problem is that if criminal allegations were brought, the fact that the principal witness has a financial interest does rather risk undermining her evidence.
Look: forget Andrew. Imagine if Worboys had been able to pay off his victims but stay as a taxi driver and continue raping. Would that have been better than him being eventually convicted and put in prison?
The answer to the failings of the criminal authorities is to make them better not abandon the criminal process altogether.
One issue in the UK is that the girls were 17 IIRC so unless assault or prostitution are involved, no crime has been commited
Yes, contrary to what some have claimed the age of consent for these alleged crimes is 18 in New York, not 17.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
In the USA for sex trafficking across state and international lines the age of consent is 18.
Since the alleged victim was 17 and was allegedly trafficked from Florida to New York, then on to the Caribbean and London, the age of consent for that would be 18. So it was criminal because she was below their age of consent.
I have no clue as to whether the age of consent in the UK raises to 18 or not for trafficking. If it doesn't, it is a possible hurdle to a criminal prosecution in the UK that doesn't exist in New York for criminal or civil prosecutions.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
This is all in your head.
Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.
It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings
It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent
Absolutely. I've made it all up. Nobody voted Brexit to get rid of the foreigners in their midst. All those TV and radio vox pops and phone ins where people say that didn't happen. That Farage "Breaking Point" poster is a figment of my deranged imagination.
Given that you are a Brexiteer who voted to LEAVE, an eternal period of silence from you on this issue would be welcome.
Rochdale voted LEAVE??!
Oh my sides. Lol
Apparently he only voted for the unicorn stay in the SM and CU with full free movement Brexit though ie one which 99% of Leavers would not have seen as Brexit at all
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?
Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?
Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.
I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.
To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
But there had been a criminal process before the civil suit was brought.
Anyway, I am unclear as to what criminal process there has been in either the U.K. or the US. My understanding is that in the US the authorities want to speak to Andrew as a possible witness in relation to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I don't know whether they are investigating criminal allegations against him.
And in the U.K. I am unaware of any criminal investigation against him. One of the allegations is of a sexual assault in London.
The other problem is that if criminal allegations were brought, the fact that the principal witness has a financial interest does rather risk undermining her evidence.
Look: forget Andrew. Imagine if Worboys had been able to pay off his victims but stay as a taxi driver and continue raping. Would that have been better than him being eventually convicted and put in prison?
The answer to the failings of the criminal authorities is to make them better not abandon the criminal process altogether.
One issue in the UK is that the girls were 17 IIRC so unless assault or prostitution are involved, no crime has been commited
Yes, contrary to what some have claimed the age of consent for these alleged crimes is 18 in New York, not 17.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
So she should be spending $30K on a ball ticket (and then we have the dress).
Woman of the People!
Actually, if she wants to do that, fine. But she can stop moralising and telling the rest of us how she is so much a better person.
Socialist girls must NOT look glam and go to parties. It's just not right!
La Raducanu is presumably now a capitalist ...
She's between 18-24 years old and so statistically more likely to lean Labour than not; however, we have no evidence of her politics.
She could be straight down the road or a capitalist, as you say, given her parents occupation.
There is some evidence from her modest Twitter feed. She is happily royalist - fervently retweets likes from Princess Kate (PBUH) - and a patriotic English football fan. And loves F1 (not very Green)
Given her background I’d say - FWIW in one so young - she’s a classic socially liberal but politically centre-right grammar school girl.
That fits. It's also worth bearing in mind her mentor, Tim Henman, is a Conservative.
However, for her sake I hope she can avoid getting sucked into politics - because people will try and get her to comment - and keep it all about the tennis.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
Co-conspirators clause bottom of page 5. I'd have said the law of privity was rather uncomplicated - if you aren't a party you can't enforce terms even explicitly for your benefit. I suppose epsteins estate could intervene but good luck with that.
Maxwell's right to rely on the NPA has bee expressly rejected, apparently on privity grounds
Rape victims have few enough rights that we can afford to reduce them by removing the right to sue. Your harks back to a pre modern justice age is my has been established law since way before Magna Carta.
Thanks.
Rape victims have the right to make an allegation to the police and have it properly investigated. That is, frankly, the right they need.
Has this been done? If so, what investigation has been done? I can well believe the police doing the square root of bugger all. I just don't know.
As for the privity point, yes this seems a very technical and unattractive argument to run, as well as likely unsuccessful.
I would not remove the right to sue. I just think this is a matter which should more properly be determined by the criminal courts following a proper investigation, if there is sufficient evidence in which a jury properly directed could convict. Rape is a serious crime - and if someone is guilty of it they should go to prison. Not be allowed to get away with paying some money. We all have an interest in seeing such matters dealt with properly.
Allowing someone to pay money as a pay-off is frankly another way of allowing them to pay for sex. Just paying later and rather more than in advance.
They have the right to both avenues of justice and good luck to all victims if they wish to proceed under both avenues.
Prosecutors in Manhattan have long been wanting to speak to Prince Andrew. If he won't speak to them, then I don't see why she should lose her right to civil damages as well as criminal justice.
My understanding is that they want to speak to him as a witness re Maxwell not as a potential defendant. But I may be wrong on that.
Anyway let's see. The whole thing is quite unedifying. My position is simply that rapists should not be allowed to stay free by paying women off. If there is evidence of a crime they should be charged and face the proper penalty if convicted.
That's a different point, and covered by making NDAs non-valid. Rapists should pay both in monetary and in criminal sanction terms, not either/or.
Yes - but I think the criminal law should come first. Rapists should be locked up.
If we abandon - because too difficult - proper effective criminal investigation and justice, then what we will end up with is rich men getting away with rape on payment of money and victims of men who are not worth suing getting neither criminal justice nor a civil remedy. In both cases, the rapists will be free and able to rape or assault again so more women will suffer. Not satisfactory.
Anyway, off to do stuff. Thanks for the debate. Have a nice day all.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
In the USA for sex trafficking across state and international lines the age of consent is 18.
Since the alleged victim was 17 and was allegedly trafficked from Florida to New York, then on to the Caribbean and London, the age of consent for that would be 18. So it was criminal because she was below their age of consent.
I have no clue as to whether the age of consent in the UK raises to 18 or not for trafficking. If it doesn't, it is a possible hurdle to a criminal prosecution in the UK that doesn't exist in New York for criminal or civil prosecutions.
That is why Ghislaine Maxwell is facing criminal trial for trafficking and aiding Epstein in that, US prosecutors have produced no evidence to charge Andrew with that.
Indeed unless it is proved he did not have sex with the woman concerned without her consent as she was over the age of consent at the time there would be nothing he could be possibly charged with.
Plus given Anne Sacoolas has not come to the UK to face criminal charges here from the CPS, even if he was facing criminal charges in the US obviously we must not send him there until Sacoolas came here first
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?
Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?
Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.
I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.
To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
But there had been a criminal process before the civil suit was brought.
Anyway, I am unclear as to what criminal process there has been in either the U.K. or the US. My understanding is that in the US the authorities want to speak to Andrew as a possible witness in relation to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I don't know whether they are investigating criminal allegations against him.
And in the U.K. I am unaware of any criminal investigation against him. One of the allegations is of a sexual assault in London.
The other problem is that if criminal allegations were brought, the fact that the principal witness has a financial interest does rather risk undermining her evidence.
Look: forget Andrew. Imagine if Worboys had been able to pay off his victims but stay as a taxi driver and continue raping. Would that have been better than him being eventually convicted and put in prison?
The answer to the failings of the criminal authorities is to make them better not abandon the criminal process altogether.
One issue in the UK is that the girls were 17 IIRC so unless assault or prostitution are involved, no crime has been commited
Yes, contrary to what some have claimed the age of consent for these alleged crimes is 18 in New York, not 17.
In the USA for sex trafficking across state and international lines the age of consent is 18.
Since the alleged victim was 17 and was allegedly trafficked from Florida to New York, then on to the Caribbean and London, the age of consent for that would be 18. So it was criminal because she was below their age of consent.
I have no clue as to whether the age of consent in the UK raises to 18 or not for trafficking. If it doesn't, it is a possible hurdle to a criminal prosecution in the UK that doesn't exist in New York for criminal or civil prosecutions.
That is why Ghislaine Maxwell is facing criminal trial for trafficking and aiding Epstein in that, US prosecutors have produced no evidence to charge Andrew with that.
Indeed unless it is proved he did not have sex with the woman concerned without her consent as she was over the age of consent at the time there would be nothing he could be possibly charged with
Just wrong, the age of consent is 18 for what is alleged.
For consensual, non-trafficked normal sex it is 17. For alleged trafficking it is 18 and since she was trafficked that makes her a minor and him an alleged rapist under the law.
In the USA for sex trafficking across state and international lines the age of consent is 18.
Since the alleged victim was 17 and was allegedly trafficked from Florida to New York, then on to the Caribbean and London, the age of consent for that would be 18. So it was criminal because she was below their age of consent.
I have no clue as to whether the age of consent in the UK raises to 18 or not for trafficking. If it doesn't, it is a possible hurdle to a criminal prosecution in the UK that doesn't exist in New York for criminal or civil prosecutions.
That is why Ghislaine Maxwell is facing criminal trial for trafficking and aiding Epstein in that, US prosecutors have produced no evidence to charge Andrew with that.
Indeed unless it is proved he did not have sex with the woman concerned without her consent as she was over the age of consent at the time there would be nothing he could be possibly charged with
Just wrong, the age of consent is 18 for what is alleged.
For consensual, non-trafficked normal sex it is 17. For alleged trafficking it is 18 and since she was trafficked that makes her a minor and him an alleged rapist under the law.
The age of consent is 17 in NY state and prosecutors there have made no criminal charges against Andrew therefore as there is no evidence he was involved in the trafficking itself
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
So she should be spending $30K on a ball ticket (and then we have the dress).
Woman of the People!
Actually, if she wants to do that, fine. But she can stop moralising and telling the rest of us how she is so much a better person.
Socialist girls must NOT look glam and go to parties. It's just not right!
La Raducanu is presumably now a capitalist ...
She's between 18-24 years old and so statistically more likely to lean Labour than not; however, we have no evidence of her politics.
She could be straight down the road or a capitalist, as you say, given her parents occupation.
There is some evidence from her modest Twitter feed. She is happily royalist - fervently retweets likes from Princess Kate (PBUH) - and a patriotic English football fan. And loves F1 (not very Green)
Given her background I’d say - FWIW in one so young - she’s a classic socially liberal but politically centre-right grammar school girl.
That fits. It's also worth bearing in mind her mentor, Tim Henman, is a Conservative.
However, for her sake I hope she can avoid getting sucked into politics - because people will try and get her to comment - and keep it all about the tennis.
Absolutely. She will be the Nation’s Darling if she plays it right. I really hope she avoids all politics. So far so good
In the USA for sex trafficking across state and international lines the age of consent is 18.
Since the alleged victim was 17 and was allegedly trafficked from Florida to New York, then on to the Caribbean and London, the age of consent for that would be 18. So it was criminal because she was below their age of consent.
I have no clue as to whether the age of consent in the UK raises to 18 or not for trafficking. If it doesn't, it is a possible hurdle to a criminal prosecution in the UK that doesn't exist in New York for criminal or civil prosecutions.
That is why Ghislaine Maxwell is facing criminal trial for trafficking and aiding Epstein in that, US prosecutors have produced no evidence to charge Andrew with that.
Indeed unless it is proved he did not have sex with the woman concerned without her consent as she was over the age of consent at the time there would be nothing he could be possibly charged with
Just wrong, the age of consent is 18 for what is alleged.
For consensual, non-trafficked normal sex it is 17. For alleged trafficking it is 18 and since she was trafficked that makes her a minor and him an alleged rapist under the law.
There's some bizarre* definition of trafficking being used if it's suddenly OK for someone over 18 to be trafficked.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?
Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?
Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.
I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.
To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
But there had been a criminal process before the civil suit was brought.
Anyway, I am unclear as to what criminal process there has been in either the U.K. or the US. My understanding is that in the US the authorities want to speak to Andrew as a possible witness in relation to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I don't know whether they are investigating criminal allegations against him.
And in the U.K. I am unaware of any criminal investigation against him. One of the allegations is of a sexual assault in London.
The other problem is that if criminal allegations were brought, the fact that the principal witness has a financial interest does rather risk undermining her evidence.
Look: forget Andrew. Imagine if Worboys had been able to pay off his victims but stay as a taxi driver and continue raping. Would that have been better than him being eventually convicted and put in prison?
The answer to the failings of the criminal authorities is to make them better not abandon the criminal process altogether.
One issue in the UK is that the girls were 17 IIRC so unless assault or prostitution are involved, no crime has been commited
Yes, contrary to what some have claimed the age of consent for these alleged crimes is 18 in New York, not 17.
Since she was trafficked from Mar-A-Lago (Florida) to New York, that crossed state lines making it 18.
Is there an age if consent for trafficking?!? By definition, there is never consent, irrespective of age.
Yes, 18.
If it crosses state lines then under 18 it is sex trafficking of a minor and that is nationwide in the USA (AFAIK) regardless of state age consent laws.
After 18 they stop being classed as a minor. At that point adult prostitution etc laws may apply but not "minor" laws.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
This is all in your head.
Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.
It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings
It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent
Absolutely. I've made it all up. Nobody voted Brexit to get rid of the foreigners in their midst. All those TV and radio vox pops and phone ins where people say that didn't happen. That Farage "Breaking Point" poster is a figment of my deranged imagination.
Given that you are a Brexiteer who voted to LEAVE, an eternal period of silence from you on this issue would be welcome.
Rochdale voted LEAVE??!
Oh my sides. Lol
Yes. It's a daily exhibition of extreme hypocrisy.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
So she should be spending $30K on a ball ticket (and then we have the dress).
Woman of the People!
Actually, if she wants to do that, fine. But she can stop moralising and telling the rest of us how she is so much a better person.
Socialist girls must NOT look glam and go to parties. It's just not right!
La Raducanu is presumably now a capitalist ...
She's between 18-24 years old and so statistically more likely to lean Labour than not; however, we have no evidence of her politics.
She could be straight down the road or a capitalist, as you say, given her parents occupation.
There is some evidence from her modest Twitter feed. She is happily royalist - fervently retweets likes from Princess Kate (PBUH) - and a patriotic English football fan. And loves F1 (not very Green)
Given her background I’d say - FWIW in one so young - she’s a classic socially liberal but politically centre-right grammar school girl.
That fits. It's also worth bearing in mind her mentor, Tim Henman, is a Conservative.
However, for her sake I hope she can avoid getting sucked into politics - because people will try and get her to comment - and keep it all about the tennis.
this is a culture war. no non-combatants. everyone has to pick a side.
1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.
2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.
3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.
I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.
A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.
The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
I like that, a gutsy call.
However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
The scope for the anti-Tory vote become much more efficient on its own is limited. They start with 317 seats in which they won 47.5% or more of the vote. Only once (Newcastle-under-Lyme, 2017) have the Tories hit that percentage and lost since 1979.
Okay, so boundary changes make this difficult to assess (the cities seat is being split up, etc.), but the Tory vote needs to be eroded in most of these for them to come into play.
Interesting list. Only 20 Tory seats won with less than 45%, and therefore susceptible to tactical voting if the Con share stays the same.
I can't see Starmer directly winning over many socially conservative voters directly from the Tories in these seats although I can see some 2019 Tory voters staying at home. I would be surprised if he had any chance of winning some red wall seats like Bolsover or even Leigh but some seats towards the bottom of the list (which I do not class as Red Wall seats) like Bury N, Dewsbury and Peterborough I would say are actually pretty likely to go back to Labour at the next election (of course we don't know about boundary changes etc).
Some seats also not on this list like Keighley I would say Labour also has a good chance despite the Tory share being high in 48% as the demographics are similar to Batley and Spen.
West Yorkshire in particular is interesting as there is such a wide potential range of outcomes and Labour still has to guard against a few extra 'Hartlepools' happening like Yvette Cooper and Jon Trickett's seats.
Excellent point. There is a significant difference between Red Wall seats like Leigh and Durham NW, and longstanding Northern marginals like Bolton NE and the two Bury seats.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?
Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?
Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.
I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.
To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
But there had been a criminal process before the civil suit was brought.
Anyway, I am unclear as to what criminal process there has been in either the U.K. or the US. My understanding is that in the US the authorities want to speak to Andrew as a possible witness in relation to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I don't know whether they are investigating criminal allegations against him.
And in the U.K. I am unaware of any criminal investigation against him. One of the allegations is of a sexual assault in London.
The other problem is that if criminal allegations were brought, the fact that the principal witness has a financial interest does rather risk undermining her evidence.
Look: forget Andrew. Imagine if Worboys had been able to pay off his victims but stay as a taxi driver and continue raping. Would that have been better than him being eventually convicted and put in prison?
The answer to the failings of the criminal authorities is to make them better not abandon the criminal process altogether.
One issue in the UK is that the girls were 17 IIRC so unless assault or prostitution are involved, no crime has been commited
Yes, contrary to what some have claimed the age of consent for these alleged crimes is 18 in New York, not 17.
Since she was trafficked from Mar-A-Lago (Florida) to New York, that crossed state lines making it 18.
Is there an age if consent for trafficking?!? By definition, there is never consent, irrespective of age.
Yes, 18.
If it crosses state lines then under 18 it is sex trafficking of a minor and that is nationwide in the USA (AFAIK) regardless of state age consent laws.
After 18 they stop being classed as a minor. At that point adult prostitution etc laws may apply but not "minor" laws.
So why have NY prosecutors and the FBI charged Maxwell but not Andrew then?
Mr. HYUFD, while I share little in common with Mr. Pioneers politically, people are entitled to change their views. And, I'd add, the lack of an actual prospectus for Leave did mean voters of various differing preferences could've backed it despite their views being mutually exclusive.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?
Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?
Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.
I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.
To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
But there had been a criminal process before the civil suit was brought.
Anyway, I am unclear as to what criminal process there has been in either the U.K. or the US. My understanding is that in the US the authorities want to speak to Andrew as a possible witness in relation to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I don't know whether they are investigating criminal allegations against him.
And in the U.K. I am unaware of any criminal investigation against him. One of the allegations is of a sexual assault in London.
The other problem is that if criminal allegations were brought, the fact that the principal witness has a financial interest does rather risk undermining her evidence.
Look: forget Andrew. Imagine if Worboys had been able to pay off his victims but stay as a taxi driver and continue raping. Would that have been better than him being eventually convicted and put in prison?
The answer to the failings of the criminal authorities is to make them better not abandon the criminal process altogether.
One issue in the UK is that the girls were 17 IIRC so unless assault or prostitution are involved, no crime has been commited
Yes, contrary to what some have claimed the age of consent for these alleged crimes is 18 in New York, not 17.
Since she was trafficked from Mar-A-Lago (Florida) to New York, that crossed state lines making it 18.
Is there an age if consent for trafficking?!? By definition, there is never consent, irrespective of age.
Yes, 18.
If it crosses state lines then under 18 it is sex trafficking of a minor and that is nationwide in the USA (AFAIK) regardless of state age consent laws.
After 18 they stop being classed as a minor. At that point adult prostitution etc laws may apply but not "minor" laws.
So why have NY prosecutors and the FBI charged Maxwell but not Andrew then?
The prosecutors still want to speak to him. They may be building their case, they may be collecting evidence.
Just because they haven't charged him yet, doesn't mean they can't in the future. Nor does it mean she can't sue him either.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?
Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?
Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.
I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.
To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
But there had been a criminal process before the civil suit was brought.
Anyway, I am unclear as to what criminal process there has been in either the U.K. or the US. My understanding is that in the US the authorities want to speak to Andrew as a possible witness in relation to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I don't know whether they are investigating criminal allegations against him.
And in the U.K. I am unaware of any criminal investigation against him. One of the allegations is of a sexual assault in London.
The other problem is that if criminal allegations were brought, the fact that the principal witness has a financial interest does rather risk undermining her evidence.
Look: forget Andrew. Imagine if Worboys had been able to pay off his victims but stay as a taxi driver and continue raping. Would that have been better than him being eventually convicted and put in prison?
The answer to the failings of the criminal authorities is to make them better not abandon the criminal process altogether.
One issue in the UK is that the girls were 17 IIRC so unless assault or prostitution are involved, no crime has been commited
Yes, contrary to what some have claimed the age of consent for these alleged crimes is 18 in New York, not 17.
Since she was trafficked from Mar-A-Lago (Florida) to New York, that crossed state lines making it 18.
Is there an age if consent for trafficking?!? By definition, there is never consent, irrespective of age.
The definition is something like “Transported across state lines for the purposes of prostitution”.
There’s a number of different laws in play as to the nature of arrangements and locations, and would I imagine be difficult to prosecute beyond reasonable doubt, certainly in the case against Andrew. The case against Maxwell has a lot more evidence.
Mr. HYUFD, while I share little in common with Mr. Pioneers politically, people are entitled to change their views. And, I'd add, the lack of an actual prospectus for Leave did mean voters of various differing preferences could've backed it despite their views being mutually exclusive.
Nonetheless it was extremely naive of him to think he could vote Leave reliant on the votes of working class Leavers opposed to FOM from the EEA to get over 50% and then if Leave won completely ignore them and the reason they voted Leave in the first place!
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
So she should be spending $30K on a ball ticket (and then we have the dress).
Woman of the People!
Actually, if she wants to do that, fine. But she can stop moralising and telling the rest of us how she is so much a better person.
Socialist girls must NOT look glam and go to parties. It's just not right!
La Raducanu is presumably now a capitalist ...
She's between 18-24 years old and so statistically more likely to lean Labour than not; however, we have no evidence of her politics.
She could be straight down the road or a capitalist, as you say, given her parents occupation.
There is some evidence from her modest Twitter feed. She is happily royalist - fervently retweets likes from Princess Kate (PBUH) - and a patriotic English football fan. And loves F1 (not very Green)
Given her background I’d say - FWIW in one so young - she’s a classic socially liberal but politically centre-right grammar school girl.
That fits. It's also worth bearing in mind her mentor, Tim Henman, is a Conservative.
However, for her sake I hope she can avoid getting sucked into politics - because people will try and get her to comment - and keep it all about the tennis.
this is a culture war. no non-combatants. everyone has to pick a side.
In the USA for sex trafficking across state and international lines the age of consent is 18.
Since the alleged victim was 17 and was allegedly trafficked from Florida to New York, then on to the Caribbean and London, the age of consent for that would be 18. So it was criminal because she was below their age of consent.
I have no clue as to whether the age of consent in the UK raises to 18 or not for trafficking. If it doesn't, it is a possible hurdle to a criminal prosecution in the UK that doesn't exist in New York for criminal or civil prosecutions.
That is why Ghislaine Maxwell is facing criminal trial for trafficking and aiding Epstein in that, US prosecutors have produced no evidence to charge Andrew with that.
Indeed unless it is proved he did not have sex with the woman concerned without her consent as she was over the age of consent at the time there would be nothing he could be possibly charged with
Just wrong, the age of consent is 18 for what is alleged.
For consensual, non-trafficked normal sex it is 17. For alleged trafficking it is 18 and since she was trafficked that makes her a minor and him an alleged rapist under the law.
There's some bizarre* definition of trafficking being used if it's suddenly OK for someone over 18 to be trafficked.
*Not "trafficking" as I understand it.
It's the same here.
Are the police still talking about "potential" (ie we don't really have a clue) victims of trafficking in their published statistics?
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?
Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?
Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.
I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.
To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
But there had been a criminal process before the civil suit was brought.
Anyway, I am unclear as to what criminal process there has been in either the U.K. or the US. My understanding is that in the US the authorities want to speak to Andrew as a possible witness in relation to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I don't know whether they are investigating criminal allegations against him.
And in the U.K. I am unaware of any criminal investigation against him. One of the allegations is of a sexual assault in London.
The other problem is that if criminal allegations were brought, the fact that the principal witness has a financial interest does rather risk undermining her evidence.
Look: forget Andrew. Imagine if Worboys had been able to pay off his victims but stay as a taxi driver and continue raping. Would that have been better than him being eventually convicted and put in prison?
The answer to the failings of the criminal authorities is to make them better not abandon the criminal process altogether.
One issue in the UK is that the girls were 17 IIRC so unless assault or prostitution are involved, no crime has been commited
Yes, contrary to what some have claimed the age of consent for these alleged crimes is 18 in New York, not 17.
Since she was trafficked from Mar-A-Lago (Florida) to New York, that crossed state lines making it 18.
Is there an age if consent for trafficking?!? By definition, there is never consent, irrespective of age.
Yes, 18.
If it crosses state lines then under 18 it is sex trafficking of a minor and that is nationwide in the USA (AFAIK) regardless of state age consent laws.
After 18 they stop being classed as a minor. At that point adult prostitution etc laws may apply but not "minor" laws.
Does anyone know if that law also requires the accused to know, or at least suspect, that she has been trafficked? If not, it seems wrong to have different ages of consent in this example.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
So she should be spending $30K on a ball ticket (and then we have the dress).
Woman of the People!
Actually, if she wants to do that, fine. But she can stop moralising and telling the rest of us how she is so much a better person.
Socialist girls must NOT look glam and go to parties. It's just not right!
La Raducanu is presumably now a capitalist ...
She's between 18-24 years old and so statistically more likely to lean Labour than not; however, we have no evidence of her politics.
She could be straight down the road or a capitalist, as you say, given her parents occupation.
There is some evidence from her modest Twitter feed. She is happily royalist - fervently retweets likes from Princess Kate (PBUH) - and a patriotic English football fan. And loves F1 (not very Green)
Given her background I’d say - FWIW in one so young - she’s a classic socially liberal but politically centre-right grammar school girl.
That fits. It's also worth bearing in mind her mentor, Tim Henman, is a Conservative.
However, for her sake I hope she can avoid getting sucked into politics - because people will try and get her to comment - and keep it all about the tennis.
this is a culture war. no non-combatants. everyone has to pick a side.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
This is all in your head.
Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.
It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings
It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent
Absolutely. I've made it all up. Nobody voted Brexit to get rid of the foreigners in their midst. All those TV and radio vox pops and phone ins where people say that didn't happen. That Farage "Breaking Point" poster is a figment of my deranged imagination.
Given that you are a Brexiteer who voted to LEAVE, an eternal period of silence from you on this issue would be welcome.
Who cares how Emma R votes? WTF are people on this morning?
Spot on. And if she does want to comment on politics of course she should be able to. That stands whether she is woke or anti-woke, left or right, remainer of brexiteer.
People moan about young people not engaging in politics. Then moan when they do.
Of course if she doesn't want to engage in politics that is completely fine too!
Liz Truss hints that groups with "vested interests" must be argued down in support of free trade ... suggests we should stop being concerned about imported products not being made to our standards. 🚨 https://twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/1437736731206463490
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
I agree with most of that but take issue with the idea the alleged victim shouldn't seek civil restitution (before the time limit lapses) just because justice via the criminal justice system hasn't been achieved yet. The alleged victim has referred this matter to the criminal authorities - is it her fault that the system has been gummed up and not reached a conclusion yet?
Both civil and criminal avenues rightly exist within the law and sometimes victims can't get justice via one channel, which is bad. Should we amplify that miscarriage of justice by denying them justice via the other channel too because of the failure of the first one?
Not to forget of course that the US puts much more strength behind its Statute of Limitations than we do. So justice delayed there truly is justice denied - forever.
As far as I know she hasn't referred the matter to the U.K. criminal authorities in respect of the sexual assault allegedly taking place in the U.K. Has she done so in the US? It doesn't normally take them decades to investigate.
I am wary about using the civil law to determine criminal matters. If someone is a rapist they should not remain free simply by paying money. That is little better than the sort of "honour" system you get in Pakistan. Nor should someone have their character tarnished so seriously on the balance of probabilities and by a judge alone. Alleged criminal behaviour is not simply the concern of the two parties involved.
To play devil’s advocate, the American case that immediately springs to mind, is that of OJ Simpson.
To turn your question around, should the family of Mrs Brown Simpson be denied restitution for their loss, purely because the criminal trial jury found him not guilty?
But there had been a criminal process before the civil suit was brought.
Anyway, I am unclear as to what criminal process there has been in either the U.K. or the US. My understanding is that in the US the authorities want to speak to Andrew as a possible witness in relation to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I don't know whether they are investigating criminal allegations against him.
And in the U.K. I am unaware of any criminal investigation against him. One of the allegations is of a sexual assault in London.
The other problem is that if criminal allegations were brought, the fact that the principal witness has a financial interest does rather risk undermining her evidence.
Look: forget Andrew. Imagine if Worboys had been able to pay off his victims but stay as a taxi driver and continue raping. Would that have been better than him being eventually convicted and put in prison?
The answer to the failings of the criminal authorities is to make them better not abandon the criminal process altogether.
One issue in the UK is that the girls were 17 IIRC so unless assault or prostitution are involved, no crime has been commited
Yes, contrary to what some have claimed the age of consent for these alleged crimes is 18 in New York, not 17.
Since she was trafficked from Mar-A-Lago (Florida) to New York, that crossed state lines making it 18.
Is there an age if consent for trafficking?!? By definition, there is never consent, irrespective of age.
Yes, 18.
If it crosses state lines then under 18 it is sex trafficking of a minor and that is nationwide in the USA (AFAIK) regardless of state age consent laws.
After 18 they stop being classed as a minor. At that point adult prostitution etc laws may apply but not "minor" laws.
Does anyone know if that law also requires the accused to know, or at least suspect, that she has been trafficked? If not, it seems wrong to have different ages of consent in this example.
Good question, though very often ignorance is not a defence under the law.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
This is all in your head.
Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.
It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings
It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent
Absolutely. I've made it all up. Nobody voted Brexit to get rid of the foreigners in their midst. All those TV and radio vox pops and phone ins where people say that didn't happen. That Farage "Breaking Point" poster is a figment of my deranged imagination.
I have no direct experience of being on a council-house waiting list, but I can imagine if you are, the thought of legitimately limiting the number ahead of you on the list is appealing. Limiting migration is about the one legitimate way of doing that. Say you are a 4th lietenant on the Titanic and your lifeboat is full. Is it racist to refuse admission to any further passengers who happen to be black?
And stop imputing motive. You have just moved house (if you started in Rochdale) from a place with 20% Asian population to one which is pretty much pure white. I wouldn't in a million years have the bad manners to draw any conclusion about your motives. Perhaps you should extend the same courtesy to Leave voters (of whom im not one btw).
So when someone stands in front of a TV camera and says they want fewer foreigners? Or rings in to say leave means fewer brown faces in Tesco? It categorically is not the case that the only reason people voted leave is racism. But it absolutely was for some people, and not a few. Which is why the Nigel unveiled his Breaking Point poster.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
So she should be spending $30K on a ball ticket (and then we have the dress).
Woman of the People!
Actually, if she wants to do that, fine. But she can stop moralising and telling the rest of us how she is so much a better person.
Socialist girls must NOT look glam and go to parties. It's just not right!
La Raducanu is presumably now a capitalist ...
She's between 18-24 years old and so statistically more likely to lean Labour than not; however, we have no evidence of her politics.
She could be straight down the road or a capitalist, as you say, given her parents occupation.
There is some evidence from her modest Twitter feed. She is happily royalist - fervently retweets likes from Princess Kate (PBUH) - and a patriotic English football fan. And loves F1 (not very Green)
Given her background I’d say - FWIW in one so young - she’s a classic socially liberal but politically centre-right grammar school girl.
That fits. It's also worth bearing in mind her mentor, Tim Henman, is a Conservative.
However, for her sake I hope she can avoid getting sucked into politics - because people will try and get her to comment - and keep it all about the tennis.
this is a culture war. no non-combatants. everyone has to pick a side.
Liz Truss hints that groups with "vested interests" must be argued down in support of free trade ... suggests we should stop being concerned about imported products not being made to our standards. 🚨 https://twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/1437736731206463490
The end of Globalization was a bit premature then - The Truss is actively seeking to destroy British industries in favour of foreign ones.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
This is all in your head.
Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.
It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings
It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent
Absolutely. I've made it all up. Nobody voted Brexit to get rid of the foreigners in their midst. All those TV and radio vox pops and phone ins where people say that didn't happen. That Farage "Breaking Point" poster is a figment of my deranged imagination.
Given that you are a Brexiteer who voted to LEAVE, an eternal period of silence from you on this issue would be welcome.
Rochdale voted LEAVE??!
Oh my sides. Lol
Yes. It's a daily exhibition of extreme hypocrisy.
I don't remember being asked if I was supporting today's one sided trading arrangements.
Do have to laugh though. I am a leave voter saying "this is shit". Telling me to shut up doesn't miraculously make it not shit.
Can anyone please tell me how the current massive cost only on UK exports and minimal restrictions on EU imports is a Good Thing? And if it isn't a good thing then how does my long-regretted vote not for this impact the reality?
Someone said we have a "zero tariff" trade deal. Do we Buxton, there's a long list of payable tariffs and a whole industry of paperwork and checks to manage them.
Mr. HYUFD, EEA may have been achievable if pro-EU MPs hadn't spent years shooting themselves in the foot.
EEA with full free movement would obviously not have been acceptable for most Leavers.
It therefore meant using working class Leavers to shaft Remainers to win the EU referendum and leave the EU, then using Remainers to shaft working class Leavers to stay in the EEA. Too clever and duplicitous by half
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
This is all in your head.
Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.
It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings
It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent
Absolutely. I've made it all up. Nobody voted Brexit to get rid of the foreigners in their midst. All those TV and radio vox pops and phone ins where people say that didn't happen. That Farage "Breaking Point" poster is a figment of my deranged imagination.
Given that you are a Brexiteer who voted to LEAVE, an eternal period of silence from you on this issue would be welcome.
Rochdale voted LEAVE??!
Oh my sides. Lol
Yes. It's a daily exhibition of extreme hypocrisy.
I don't remember being asked if I was supporting today's one sided trading arrangements.
Do have to laugh though. I am a leave voter saying "this is shit". Telling me to shut up doesn't miraculously make it not shit.
Can anyone please tell me how the current massive cost only on UK exports and minimal restrictions on EU imports is a Good Thing? And if it isn't a good thing then how does my long-regretted vote not for this impact the reality?
Someone said we have a "zero tariff" trade deal. Do we Buxton, there's a long list of payable tariffs and a whole industry of paperwork and checks to manage them.
Don't blame me or come crying to me old bean.
I voted REMAIN.
At least most Leavers on here have the courage of their convictions.
Mr. HYUFD, while I share little in common with Mr. Pioneers politically, people are entitled to change their views. And, I'd add, the lack of an actual prospectus for Leave did mean voters of various differing preferences could've backed it despite their views being mutually exclusive.
Nonetheless it was extremely naive of him to think he could vote Leave reliant on the votes of working class Leavers opposed to FOM from the EEA to get over 50% and then if Leave won completely ignore them and the reason they voted Leave in the first place!
Freedom of movement was the reason leave won. How am I ignoring them? I am pointing to the hypocrisy of people like Javid who parade how their migrant dad was a bus driver whilst slamming the door shut on this generation's migrant dad drivers. Especially as we're well short of them right now.
Mr. HYUFD, while I share little in common with Mr. Pioneers politically, people are entitled to change their views. And, I'd add, the lack of an actual prospectus for Leave did mean voters of various differing preferences could've backed it despite their views being mutually exclusive.
Nonetheless it was extremely naive of him to think he could vote Leave reliant on the votes of working class Leavers opposed to FOM from the EEA to get over 50% and then if Leave won completely ignore them and the reason they voted Leave in the first place!
Freedom of movement was the reason leave won. How am I ignoring them? I am pointing to the hypocrisy of people like Javid who parade how their migrant dad was a bus driver whilst slamming the door shut on this generation's migrant dad drivers. Especially as we're well short of them right now.
If net migration is much higher than it was when Sajid Javid's father came to the UK, in what sense has the door been slammed shut?
If other MPs did vote for the EEA then I stand corrected. Remiss of me not to know of a rare instance of pro-EU MPs voting in a pro-EU way rather than alongside anti-EU Conservative backbenchers.
Mr. HYUFD, while I share little in common with Mr. Pioneers politically, people are entitled to change their views. And, I'd add, the lack of an actual prospectus for Leave did mean voters of various differing preferences could've backed it despite their views being mutually exclusive.
Nonetheless it was extremely naive of him to think he could vote Leave reliant on the votes of working class Leavers opposed to FOM from the EEA to get over 50% and then if Leave won completely ignore them and the reason they voted Leave in the first place!
Freedom of movement was the reason leave won. How am I ignoring them? I am pointing to the hypocrisy of people like Javid who parade how their migrant dad was a bus driver whilst slamming the door shut on this generation's migrant dad drivers. Especially as we're well short of them right now.
Javid voted Remain, unlike you. However he also respects democracy.
Plus the points system we now have means that if we have a shortage of skills in an area migrants can still come here to meet that
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
There's a weird assumption amongst some on the Left that British identity must be somehow based on racial purity.
It says more about them than anyone else.
It’s also repugnant. ‘She’s not really British’. You what? We’ve just spent 50 fucking years learning (rightly) that anyone who legally migrates here is British. End of. That’s it. Race is irrelevant
This is a victory for the progressive left and I salute it. Emma R is an outstanding example of how this can work so well.
Now the same progressives say ‘nah she’s not *really* British look at her racial background’, just because they hate Brexit. Fuck them
Its the opposite. The right bang on about ethnicity and nationalism and race.
The reason why her migrant status and ethnic background are being raised by progressives is to show the hypocrisy of the people who openly voted to get rid of the Romanians and now cheer one.
And before anyone says "managed migration policy" I don't hear knuckle-draggers demanding the right kind of Romanians be allowed in. They just want them gone.
What she demonstrates is that you can be a migrant and naturalise. She is British because she chooses to be. That is a good thing. Yet other people who may also have the same skills and potential are shut out. They don't get the choice.
And its the same with the hypocrites in the cabinet. Javid makes a great deal of being the son of a bus driver, whilst ensuring that future sons of bus drivers are banned from having the same opportunities he had.
This is all in your head.
Indeed. Rochdale is fighting some caricature of ‘right wing belief’ which is all in his mind. Literally delusional.
It reminds me of Remoaners who think Brexiteers are all dim, 60-something empire nostalgics who want to reinvade Kenya and bring back Bakelite phones. I’ve never met a single Brexiteer - or Leave voter - who thinks like that. Yet that is the demon in the brains of your A C Graylings
It’s partly why - against the odds - Remain lost. They conjured up a demonic opponent who made them feel morally superior - and smarter. But that wasn’t their actual opponent
Absolutely. I've made it all up. Nobody voted Brexit to get rid of the foreigners in their midst. All those TV and radio vox pops and phone ins where people say that didn't happen. That Farage "Breaking Point" poster is a figment of my deranged imagination.
Given that you are a Brexiteer who voted to LEAVE, an eternal period of silence from you on this issue would be welcome.
Rochdale voted LEAVE??!
Oh my sides. Lol
Yes. It's a daily exhibition of extreme hypocrisy.
I don't remember being asked if I was supporting today's one sided trading arrangements.
Do have to laugh though. I am a leave voter saying "this is shit". Telling me to shut up doesn't miraculously make it not shit.
Can anyone please tell me how the current massive cost only on UK exports and minimal restrictions on EU imports is a Good Thing? And if it isn't a good thing then how does my long-regretted vote not for this impact the reality?
Someone said we have a "zero tariff" trade deal. Do we Buxton, there's a long list of payable tariffs and a whole industry of paperwork and checks to manage them.
Don't blame me or come crying to me old bean.
I voted REMAIN.
At least most Leavers on here have the courage of their convictions.
Lol - I wanted to leave the European Union. We were never going to agree their direction of travel on integration. Which means at some point or other we were either going to step out to the outer ring of the "twin track" / "two speed" Europe in our own time, or be put there in theirs.
Having done that the question is what we do now. And we've chosen to demand the EU treat us like a 3rd country and thus fuck exports whilst failing to reciprocate. Not even by policy, by being shit. We haven't invested in facilities or computer systems or the people to the checks we demanded.
How does me voting leave mean I have no say on this shitfest? In what way is this non-reciprocal trade fuck a direct non-negotiable outcome of leaving the EU?
Mr. HYUFD, while I share little in common with Mr. Pioneers politically, people are entitled to change their views. And, I'd add, the lack of an actual prospectus for Leave did mean voters of various differing preferences could've backed it despite their views being mutually exclusive.
Nonetheless it was extremely naive of him to think he could vote Leave reliant on the votes of working class Leavers opposed to FOM from the EEA to get over 50% and then if Leave won completely ignore them and the reason they voted Leave in the first place!
Freedom of movement was the reason leave won. How am I ignoring them? I am pointing to the hypocrisy of people like Javid who parade how their migrant dad was a bus driver whilst slamming the door shut on this generation's migrant dad drivers. Especially as we're well short of them right now.
His parents were Pakistanis, where does brexit come into this?
Mr. HYUFD, while I share little in common with Mr. Pioneers politically, people are entitled to change their views. And, I'd add, the lack of an actual prospectus for Leave did mean voters of various differing preferences could've backed it despite their views being mutually exclusive.
Nonetheless it was extremely naive of him to think he could vote Leave reliant on the votes of working class Leavers opposed to FOM from the EEA to get over 50% and then if Leave won completely ignore them and the reason they voted Leave in the first place!
Freedom of movement was the reason leave won. How am I ignoring them? I am pointing to the hypocrisy of people like Javid who parade how their migrant dad was a bus driver whilst slamming the door shut on this generation's migrant dad drivers. Especially as we're well short of them right now.
As I pointed out, Sajid Javid's dad didn't come here under FOM. Immigration is quite possible outside the EU.
Mr. HYUFD, while I share little in common with Mr. Pioneers politically, people are entitled to change their views. And, I'd add, the lack of an actual prospectus for Leave did mean voters of various differing preferences could've backed it despite their views being mutually exclusive.
Nonetheless it was extremely naive of him to think he could vote Leave reliant on the votes of working class Leavers opposed to FOM from the EEA to get over 50% and then if Leave won completely ignore them and the reason they voted Leave in the first place!
Freedom of movement was the reason leave won. How am I ignoring them? I am pointing to the hypocrisy of people like Javid who parade how their migrant dad was a bus driver whilst slamming the door shut on this generation's migrant dad drivers. Especially as we're well short of them right now.
If net migration is much higher than it was when Sajid Javid's father came to the UK, in what sense has the door been slammed shut?
In the way that bus drivers and truck drivers and people with that skill set are not allowed through it.
As a 2021 Javid Snr isn't allowed to migrate here despite the massive need for his services, in what way can you argue the door is not shut?
Mr. Borough, no, it'll be fine. Our energy policy has been designed around a hard-headed and realistic assessment of energy needs and not to get social media brownie points by putting 'green' energy production ahead of what we actually need to reliably generate power.
Mr. HYUFD, while I share little in common with Mr. Pioneers politically, people are entitled to change their views. And, I'd add, the lack of an actual prospectus for Leave did mean voters of various differing preferences could've backed it despite their views being mutually exclusive.
Nonetheless it was extremely naive of him to think he could vote Leave reliant on the votes of working class Leavers opposed to FOM from the EEA to get over 50% and then if Leave won completely ignore them and the reason they voted Leave in the first place!
Freedom of movement was the reason leave won. How am I ignoring them? I am pointing to the hypocrisy of people like Javid who parade how their migrant dad was a bus driver whilst slamming the door shut on this generation's migrant dad drivers. Especially as we're well short of them right now.
You might regret your vote to leave, but there's insufficient leavers like yourself to really change anything now. Perhaps you'll get another chance to vote to join EEA or whatever in 40 years or so.
Mr. HYUFD, while I share little in common with Mr. Pioneers politically, people are entitled to change their views. And, I'd add, the lack of an actual prospectus for Leave did mean voters of various differing preferences could've backed it despite their views being mutually exclusive.
Nonetheless it was extremely naive of him to think he could vote Leave reliant on the votes of working class Leavers opposed to FOM from the EEA to get over 50% and then if Leave won completely ignore them and the reason they voted Leave in the first place!
Freedom of movement was the reason leave won. How am I ignoring them? I am pointing to the hypocrisy of people like Javid who parade how their migrant dad was a bus driver whilst slamming the door shut on this generation's migrant dad drivers. Especially as we're well short of them right now.
Javid voted Remain, unlike you. However he also respects democracy.
Plus the points system we now have means that if we have a shortage of skills in an area migrants can still come here to meet that
Great! We have an acute and prolonged shortage of drivers. Can the 2021 equivalent of Mr Javid Snr come here to fill the shortage of skills?
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Two seconds of research tells me the dress (and the ticket) was by Aurora James. The politics of it get to complex for a quick post.
If you wear a dress by an invited designer, as AOC did, you get a free ticket
She did look great. She’s highly attractive. But it is also a terrible look for Democrats in general. Rich New Yorkers lecturing poor white Trumpites by attending billionaire balls while declaring ‘tax the rich’ on a $10k designer dress?? The insane hypocrisy is off the dial. It goes up to 11. The Dems could lose in 2024 just coz of shit like this
Not sure why poor white Trumpites should take her "Tax the Rich" message as lecturing to them. If they had a bean of intelligence between them they might consider echoing it rather than getting in a spin about her dress.
Mr. HYUFD, while I share little in common with Mr. Pioneers politically, people are entitled to change their views. And, I'd add, the lack of an actual prospectus for Leave did mean voters of various differing preferences could've backed it despite their views being mutually exclusive.
Nonetheless it was extremely naive of him to think he could vote Leave reliant on the votes of working class Leavers opposed to FOM from the EEA to get over 50% and then if Leave won completely ignore them and the reason they voted Leave in the first place!
Freedom of movement was the reason leave won. How am I ignoring them? I am pointing to the hypocrisy of people like Javid who parade how their migrant dad was a bus driver whilst slamming the door shut on this generation's migrant dad drivers. Especially as we're well short of them right now.
Javid voted Remain, unlike you. However he also respects democracy.
Plus the points system we now have means that if we have a shortage of skills in an area migrants can still come here to meet that
Great! We have an acute and prolonged shortage of drivers. Can the 2021 equivalent of Mr Javid Snr come here to fill the shortage of skills?
Quite possibly yes.
We have hundreds of thousands immigrating to the UK annually. Not all under skilled visas or free movement.
Wholesale price of electricity was 35p a KWh yesterday.
Yikes.
This issue could explode this winter.
⚡⚡CRAZY POWER PRICES⚡⚡ UK day-ahead electricity prices climb further, much further, setting a fresh and eye-watering all-time high of £424 per MWh on the N2EX platform (up ~20% from yesterday's already record high). UK power prices tomorrow at 7-8pm will reach £2,500 per MWh https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1437731422098366468/photo/1
Mr. HYUFD, while I share little in common with Mr. Pioneers politically, people are entitled to change their views. And, I'd add, the lack of an actual prospectus for Leave did mean voters of various differing preferences could've backed it despite their views being mutually exclusive.
Nonetheless it was extremely naive of him to think he could vote Leave reliant on the votes of working class Leavers opposed to FOM from the EEA to get over 50% and then if Leave won completely ignore them and the reason they voted Leave in the first place!
Freedom of movement was the reason leave won. How am I ignoring them? I am pointing to the hypocrisy of people like Javid who parade how their migrant dad was a bus driver whilst slamming the door shut on this generation's migrant dad drivers. Especially as we're well short of them right now.
You might regret your vote to leave, but there's insufficient leavers like yourself to really change anything now. Perhaps you'll get another chance to vote to join EEA or whatever in 40 years or so.
Right here and now that isn't needed. What is needed is for us to decide what we want. Do we want to be a 3rd country with the EU? In which case get the fuck on with building Border Control Points, recruiting customs staff, building the IT system. So that the deal we negotiated can be implemented evenly.
Or if we don't think trade barriers are a good thing (hence our refusal to implement most of it on our side) then lets agree the alignment deal so that we can get back to trading freely.
Instead we have this stupid limbo where we negotiate a deal to make trade more difficult and expensive and then only impose it on ourselves. Its a reverse trade sanction, applied by the UK on the UK.
Mr. HYUFD, while I share little in common with Mr. Pioneers politically, people are entitled to change their views. And, I'd add, the lack of an actual prospectus for Leave did mean voters of various differing preferences could've backed it despite their views being mutually exclusive.
Nonetheless it was extremely naive of him to think he could vote Leave reliant on the votes of working class Leavers opposed to FOM from the EEA to get over 50% and then if Leave won completely ignore them and the reason they voted Leave in the first place!
Freedom of movement was the reason leave won. How am I ignoring them? I am pointing to the hypocrisy of people like Javid who parade how their migrant dad was a bus driver whilst slamming the door shut on this generation's migrant dad drivers. Especially as we're well short of them right now.
You might regret your vote to leave, but there's insufficient leavers like yourself to really change anything now. Perhaps you'll get another chance to vote to join EEA or whatever in 40 years or so.
Right here and now that isn't needed. What is needed is for us to decide what we want. Do we want to be a 3rd country with the EU? In which case get the fuck on with building Border Control Points, recruiting customs staff, building the IT system. So that the deal we negotiated can be implemented evenly.
Or if we don't think trade barriers are a good thing (hence our refusal to implement most of it on our side) then lets agree the alignment deal so that we can get back to trading freely.
Instead we have this stupid limbo where we negotiate a deal to make trade more difficult and expensive and then only impose it on ourselves. Its a reverse trade sanction, applied by the UK on the UK.
Why such a simple-minded binary choice?
What about if we want to be a 3rd country but without Border Control Points?
Wholesale price of electricity was 35p a KWh yesterday.
Yikes.
This issue could explode this winter.
⚡⚡CRAZY POWER PRICES⚡⚡ UK day-ahead electricity prices climb further, much further, setting a fresh and eye-watering all-time high of £424 per MWh on the N2EX platform (up ~20% from yesterday's already record high). UK power prices tomorrow at 7-8pm will reach £2,500 per MWh https://twitter.com/JavierBlas/status/1437731422098366468/photo/1
The tidal lagoon has a pricetag of £1.3 Bn. It is rated at 320 MW. That's £4062.50 per Megawatt. Which looks like it'll pay for itself err... tommorow. Even if the cost is out by a factor of 10 it still looks worth doing. And it's green !
Better than the factually inaccurate nonsense in the New Statesman anyways. Which wasn't hard.
Note the article also points out Nanos has the Liberals back ahead now, though still well short of the lead they would need for a majority Trudeau called the election to try and win that should ensure they narrowly win most seats still
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
So she should be spending $30K on a ball ticket (and then we have the dress).
Woman of the People!
Actually, if she wants to do that, fine. But she can stop moralising and telling the rest of us how she is so much a better person.
Socialist girls must NOT look glam and go to parties. It's just not right!
La Raducanu is presumably now a capitalist ...
She's between 18-24 years old and so statistically more likely to lean Labour than not; however, we have no evidence of her politics.
She could be straight down the road or a capitalist, as you say, given her parents occupation.
EDIT: she might also couldn't care less.
While there has been a volley of speculation about Raducanu's political match, she has never been seen at a rally and we cannot de-deuce which set she belongs to, nor whether politics is her game. Each party, to a fault, looks for an advantage, even a backhand compliment or any kind of break to net her support and rally in the polls. While politicos might court her, it is likely she has another love.
Comments
Some seats also not on this list like Keighley I would say Labour also has a good chance despite the Tory share being high in 48% as the demographics are similar to Batley and Spen.
West Yorkshire in particular is interesting as there is such a wide potential range of outcomes and Labour still has to guard against a few extra 'Hartlepools' happening like Yvette Cooper and Jon Trickett's seats.
Prosecutors in Manhattan have long been wanting to speak to Prince Andrew. If he won't speak to them, then I don't see why she should lose her right to civil damages as well as criminal justice.
I've never suggested women should have to cover up to not be objectified. If elderly men gawking at and objectifying young women is creepy then the onus should be on the men to be less creepy - not the women to have to change.
Anyway, I am unclear as to what criminal process there has been in either the U.K. or the US. My understanding is that in the US the authorities want to speak to Andrew as a possible witness in relation to the charges against Ghislaine Maxwell. I don't know whether they are investigating criminal allegations against him.
And in the U.K. I am unaware of any criminal investigation against him. One of the allegations is of a sexual assault in London.
The other problem is that if criminal allegations were brought, the fact that the principal witness has a financial interest does rather risk undermining her evidence.
Look: forget Andrew. Imagine if Worboys had been able to pay off his victims but stay as a taxi driver and continue raping. Would that have been better than him being eventually convicted and put in prison?
The answer to the failings of the criminal authorities is to make them better not abandon the criminal process altogether.
A tragic mistake. He really believed it
We’re seeing the same with the ‘teletubby’ Taliban now. They haven’t changed. They believe in sharia and say so. And they are whipping women in the streets. Again
She could be straight down the road or a capitalist, as you say, given her parents occupation.
EDIT: she might also couldn't care less.
@Andrew_Adonis
·
2h
Big mistake for Labour to go back to mass nationalisation. I mean a mistake of election losing proportions
Anyway let's see. The whole thing is quite unedifying. My position is simply that rapists should not be allowed to stay free by paying women off. If there is evidence of a crime they should be charged and face the proper penalty if convicted.
Given her background I’d say - FWIW in one so young - she’s a classic socially liberal but politically centre-right grammar school girl.
And stop imputing motive. You have just moved house (if you started in Rochdale) from a place with 20% Asian population to one which is pretty much pure white. I wouldn't in a million years have the bad manners to draw any conclusion about your motives. Perhaps you should extend the same courtesy to Leave voters (of whom im not one btw).
Both systems of justice rightly exist and both are rightly available in full. To deny either, denies the victims justice.
Plus of course there's an issue of differing levels of proof being required. If a rape can be proven "on balance of probabilities" but not "beyond all reasonable doubt" then it may be possible for a victim to get civil but not criminal justice. Should that be denied to her, just because there's a "reasonable" (even if unlikely) doubt?
Oh my sides. Lol
From a pragmatic viewpoint however, with rape being difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt means there is a often a difference between a rapist (criminal) and rapist (civil). The underlying problems are rape happening in the first place, and then that it is very hard to prove. With criminal justice often not available as a result of that, civil financial justice has a role to play, even if it is unsatisfactory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_the_United_States#New_York
Most of the virtue-signalling tax-dodging celebrities seem to be very keen to hang on to their dosh, too.
But if you really want rabid capitalism, try dealing with most footballers doing investments.
Since the alleged victim was 17 and was allegedly trafficked from Florida to New York, then on to the Caribbean and London, the age of consent for that would be 18. So it was criminal because she was below their age of consent.
I have no clue as to whether the age of consent in the UK raises to 18 or not for trafficking. If it doesn't, it is a possible hurdle to a criminal prosecution in the UK that doesn't exist in New York for criminal or civil prosecutions.
Since she was trafficked from Mar-A-Lago (Florida) to New York, that crossed state lines making it 18.
However, for her sake I hope she can avoid getting sucked into politics - because people will try and get her to comment - and keep it all about the tennis.
If we abandon - because too difficult - proper effective criminal investigation and justice, then what we will end up with is rich men getting away with rape on payment of money and victims of men who are not worth suing getting neither criminal justice nor a civil remedy. In both cases, the rapists will be free and able to rape or assault again so more women will suffer. Not satisfactory.
Anyway, off to do stuff. Thanks for the debate. Have a nice day all.
Indeed unless it is proved he did not have sex with the woman concerned without her consent as she was over the age of consent at the time there would be nothing he could be possibly charged with.
Plus given Anne Sacoolas has not come to the UK to face criminal charges here from the CPS, even if he was facing criminal charges in the US obviously we must not send him there until Sacoolas came here first
For consensual, non-trafficked normal sex it is 17. For alleged trafficking it is 18 and since she was trafficked that makes her a minor and him an alleged rapist under the law.
*Not "trafficking" as I understand it.
If it crosses state lines then under 18 it is sex trafficking of a minor and that is nationwide in the USA (AFAIK) regardless of state age consent laws.
After 18 they stop being classed as a minor. At that point adult prostitution etc laws may apply but not "minor" laws.
Just because they haven't charged him yet, doesn't mean they can't in the future. Nor does it mean she can't sue him either.
There’s a number of different laws in play as to the nature of arrangements and locations, and would I imagine be difficult to prosecute beyond reasonable doubt, certainly in the case against Andrew. The case against Maxwell has a lot more evidence.
A civil case requires a lower burden of proof.
Are the police still talking about "potential" (ie we don't really have a clue) victims of trafficking in their published statistics?
People moan about young people not engaging in politics. Then moan when they do.
Of course if she doesn't want to engage in politics that is completely fine too!
She could have for London mayor. But that is it. Most 18 year olds didn't.
Take Back ControlLiz Truss hints that groups with "vested interests" must be argued down in support of free trade ... suggests we should stop being concerned about imported products not being made to our standards. 🚨
https://twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/1437736731206463490
Here you go. It is illegal for a child under 18 to be taken across state lines for amongst other things the purpose of commercial sexual activity.
So since she was allegedly taken from Florida to New York that crossed state lines and raised the age of consent from 17 to 18.
EDIT: And this law explicitly allows victims to seek restitution, which is what she is doing.
Do have to laugh though. I am a leave voter saying "this is shit". Telling me to shut up doesn't miraculously make it not shit.
Can anyone please tell me how the current massive cost only on UK exports and minimal restrictions on EU imports is a Good Thing? And if it isn't a good thing then how does my long-regretted vote not for this impact the reality?
Someone said we have a "zero tariff" trade deal. Do we Buxton, there's a long list of payable tariffs and a whole industry of paperwork and checks to manage them.
It therefore meant using working class Leavers to shaft Remainers to win the EU referendum and leave the EU, then using Remainers to shaft working class Leavers to stay in the EEA. Too clever and duplicitous by half
I voted REMAIN.
At least most Leavers on here have the courage of their convictions.
If other MPs did vote for the EEA then I stand corrected. Remiss of me not to know of a rare instance of pro-EU MPs voting in a pro-EU way rather than alongside anti-EU Conservative backbenchers.
Plus the points system we now have means that if we have a shortage of skills in an area migrants can still come here to meet that
Having done that the question is what we do now. And we've chosen to demand the EU treat us like a 3rd country and thus fuck exports whilst failing to reciprocate. Not even by policy, by being shit. We haven't invested in facilities or computer systems or the people to the checks we demanded.
How does me voting leave mean I have no say on this shitfest? In what way is this non-reciprocal trade fuck a direct non-negotiable outcome of leaving the EU?
Shapps' latest wheeze is to scrap the hard parts of the driving test...
Yikes.
This issue could explode this winter.
As a 2021 Javid Snr isn't allowed to migrate here despite the massive need for his services, in what way can you argue the door is not shut?
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/canadas-trudeau-sought-an-election-he-risks-losing-with-only-week-go-2021-09-13/
Better than the factually inaccurate nonsense in the New Statesman anyways. Which wasn't hard.
Perhaps you'll get another chance to vote to join EEA or whatever in 40 years or so.
We have hundreds of thousands immigrating to the UK annually. Not all under skilled visas or free movement.
Where's that tidal lagoon ?
Interesting times. Which are, of course, a Chinese curse.
Or if we don't think trade barriers are a good thing (hence our refusal to implement most of it on our side) then lets agree the alignment deal so that we can get back to trading freely.
Instead we have this stupid limbo where we negotiate a deal to make trade more difficult and expensive and then only impose it on ourselves. Its a reverse trade sanction, applied by the UK on the UK.
What about if we want to be a 3rd country but without Border Control Points?
And it's green !
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/mar/28/astrazeneca-vaccine-deserves-celebration-not-scorn