Grim news from the US concerning gun crime, but there's some interesting stuff on Wiki concerning homicides and race
Blacks account for the majority of gun homicide victims/arrestees in the US while whites account for the vast majority of, 0.98% unknown race and 0.48% Native American. .
.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’mcidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Not sure where you are going with this, but surely the number of gun crimes cor political reasons or due to mental health issues. If gun control reduces the latter, isn't that justification enough for it even if it is ineffective against the former? And the relative scales of the two problems doesn't seem particularly relevant.
Disagreeing with the word “slash”. There are lots of good reasons for gun control but it won’t have a major impact on overall homicide numbers
In the US?! You are kidding.
I think the majority of homicides will still occur just by different methods
Even the banning of automatic weapons would make a huge difference, for reasons too obvious to need pointing out.
So he’s essentially saying we gave them better investment advice?
I suppose that wealthy farmers have the luxury of making long-term economic decisions without the pressure for near term cash/food and hence should be able to generate higher returns on average
I’ve no doubt that the long term economic return on the land was increased. I am less sure that that return was reinvested for the benefit of the native population.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
You can also kill with stupidity, and you are trying very hard, Charles!
No need to be offensive Peter
My point is simply “gun control” is a very simplistic answer. Life is more complicated than that. It’s part of the solution but not a panacea.
The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.
It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.
I don't want to tempt fate, but I don't think it's inevitable. I think there is something about the USA that is different - no, I can't explain it. Though, having said that, it happened in Norway a few years ago, and if it can happen there, then it can probably happen anywhere.
Breivik's a good case to consider. He had links to far-right groups, on a correspondence and meetings basis, but there was no group involved in his terrorism, and he didn't do it in the name of a particular cause. There wasn't a movement in any meaningful sense, nor is there in the recent US cases. On the other hand there is an ideology, one that is racist and nationalist, but no organisation, no terrorist group, no politcal party, no leader, you aren't going to arrest any ring-leaders.
Fighting the current type of ring-wing terrorism will prove harder than fighting al-Qaeda or ISIS, as it will be akin to fighting militant Islamism. It will be a battle of ideas, more than a convention counter-terrorism campaign.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
There have been 88 homicides in London so far this year. There were 29 deaths in the two attacks alone this weekend. It’s not as easy to kill large numbers with a knife as with guns.
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the pand sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal
Good to hear. I take it that should Jeremy Corbyn win the next general election you will be equally vociferous in championing his policies? Will of the people and all that?
Or do you have principles at all? If so you, as a diehard remainer, can't support the policies of the current Conservative Party because you have proven, by your vote to remain in the EU, that you disagree with them.
Time to find another party.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins the nave left in March. We must Leave in October.
If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first
You disagree with this government's policy and yet are supporting it. That is pretty strange. The government wants to leave with no deal and to leave the single market and customs union. By your vote in 2016 you showed that you disagree with this. You are, simply, in the wrong party. It is the same with Labour. If they were to win by your own reckoning you should support it because their policies, likewise, are ones that you disagree with. Your only criterion of supporting a policy it seems is because it was arrived at democratically. So if Labour were elected by your own logic you would have no option but to support them.
As I said before I was always on the borderline between Leave and Remain and would have voted Leave had the Euro been a requirement of continued EU membership, after we Leave the EU to respect the Brexit vote rejoining would likely require joining the Euro so I oppose rejoining now too.
Leaving the single market and customs union are a necessary requirement to respect the Leave campaign's promise to end free movement and do our own trade deals though I would not necessarily oppose rejoining the single market in a decade or so once immigration has been brought under control, though I would still oppose rejoining the full EU.
I have always opposed Corbyn's policies and always will, if Corbyn won a general election I would respect the voters decision but continue to oppose his government and campaign for a Tory victory at the subsequent general election
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
icide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
You can also kill with stupidity, and you are trying very hard, Charles!
No need to be offensive Peter
My point is simply “gun control” is a very simplistic answer. Life is more complicated than that. It’s part of the solution but not a panacea.
OK, sorry if I offended. I got fed up with the level of debate, but that's no excuse.
So he’s essentially saying we gave them better investment advice?
I suppose that wealthy farmers have the luxury of making long-term economic decisions without the pressure for near term cash/food and hence should be able to generate higher returns on average
I’ve no doubt that the long term economic return on the land was increased. I am less sure that that return was reinvested for the benefit of the native population.
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal
Good to hear.r party.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins the nave left in March. We must Leave in October.
If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first
You disagree with this government's policy and yet are supporting it. That is pretty strange. The government wants to leave with no deal and to leave the single market and customs union. By your vote in 2016 you showed that you disagree with this. You are, simply, in the wrong party. It is the same with Labour. If they were to win by your own reckoning you should support it because their policies, likewise, are ones that you disagree with. Your only criterion of supporting a policy it seems is because it was arrived at democratically. So if Labour were elected by your own logic you would have no option but to support them.
As I said before I was always on the borderline between Leave and Remain and would have voted Leave had the Euro been a requirement, after we Leave the EU to respect the Brexit vote rejoining would likely require joining the Euro so I oppose rejoining now too.
Leaving the single market and customs union are a necessary requirement to respect the Leave campaign's promise to end free movement and do our own trade deals though I would not necessarily oppose rejoining the single market in a decade or so once immigration has been brought under control, though I would still oppose rejoining the full EU.
I have always opposed Corbyn's policies and always will
You opposed leaving the single market and customs Union. We can't trust your principles.
You voted remain. Ergo you are a diehard remainer. Ergo you are in the wrong party.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
There have been 88 homicides in London so far this year. There were 29 deaths in the two attacks alone this weekend. It’s not as easy to kill large numbers with a knife as with guns.
Absolutely. But I suspect that spree killings are a small proportion of the overall number of homicides (don’t know if there are stats)
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
There have been 88 homicides in London so far this year. There were 29 deaths in the two attacks alone this weekend. It’s not as easy to kill large numbers with a knife as with guns.
Whilst I think the US gun laws are bonkers, there are other ways to murder a lot of people in one go. A motor vehicle being the obvious method - though you are more limited in targets. Would these people switch methods if automatic weapons were not available? I don't know - perhaps there's soemthing about guns that attracts these people.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
icide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
You can also kill with stupidity, and you are trying very hard, Charles!
No need to be offensive Peter
My point is simply “gun control” is a very simplistic answer. Life is more complicated than that. It’s part of the solution but not a panacea.
OK, sorry if I offended. I got fed up with the level of debate, but that's no excuse.
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Not sure where you are going with this, but surely the number of gun crimes cor political reasons or due to mental health issues. If gun control reduces the latter, isn't that justification enough for it even if it is ineffective against the former? And the relative scales of the two problems doesn't seem particularly relevant.
Disagreeing with the word “slash”. There are lots of good reasons for gun control but it won’t have a major impact on overall homicide numbers
In the US?! You are kidding.
It's worth pointing out that a majority of US gun deaths each year are suicides. Tightening gun laws would probably reduce the suicide rate somewhat if the method of choice became higher to obtain, or people might simply switch to overdosing on prescription drugs. Either way, it's still worth doing. At a bare minimum you'd see a huge drop off in people being accidentally shot by their own children.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
There have been 88 homicides in London so far this year. There were 29 deaths in the two attacks alone this weekend. It’s not as easy to kill large numbers with a knife as with guns.
Absolutely. But I suspect that spree killings are a small proportion of the overall number of homicides (don’t know if there are stats)
Look at @Scott_P 's post. Only a small proportion of the US's killing sprees make the news here (I don't know the definition). It's clearly a significant part of the equation, though.
The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.
It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.
Far right terrorism in this country seems mostly to comprise people who are extremely incompetent, but one can't count on that remaining the case.
"Australia is in the box seat to win the first Ashes Test after a brilliant day's play in Birmingham.
Steve Smith scored his second century of the match to ensure England needs to chase down a massive total in the fourth innings or bat out the final day to avoid defeat."
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
There have been 88 homicides in London so far this year. There were 29 deaths in the two attacks alone this weekend. It’s not as easy to kill large numbers with a knife as with guns.
Absolutely. But I suspect that spree killings are a small proportion of the overall number of homicides (don’t know if there are stats)
Look at @Scott_P 's post. Only a small proportion of the US's killing sprees make the news here (I don't know the definition). It's clearly a significant part of the equation, though.
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal
Good to hear.r party.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins the nave left in March. We must Leave in October.
If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first
You disagree with this governmen logic you would have no option but to support them.
As I said before I was always on the borderline between Leave and Remain and would have voted Leave had the Euro been a requirement, after we Leave the EU to respect the Brexit vote rejoining would likely require joining the Euro so I oppose rejoining now too.
Leaving the single market and customs union are a necessary requirement to respect the Leave campaign's promise to end free movement and do our own trade deals though I would not necessarily oppose rejoining the single market in a decade or so once immigration has been brought under control, though I would still oppose rejoining the full EU.
I have always opposed Corbyn's policies and always will
You opposed leaving the single market and customs Union. We can't trust your principles.
You voted remain. Ergo you are a diehard remainer. Ergo you are in the wrong party.
Nope, I backed the Withdrawal Agreement and back No Deal now if necessary to ensure Brexit on 31st October. By definition that does not make me a diehard Remainer, diehard Remainers by definition refuse to respect the Brexit vote and want to stop us leaving the EU on 31st October.
As I also made clear I now back leaving the customs union to enable us to do our own trade deals and the single market in the short term too to enable us to end free movement, I would only reconsider joining the EEA in a decade at the earliest as I also made clear I would never now support us rejoining the full EU
The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.
It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.
Far right terrorism in this country seems mostly to comprise people who are extremely incompetent, but one can't count on that remaining the case.
Thankfully they can't just pop into town, buy an assault rifle and box of ammo and head to the mosque.
Blacks account for the majority of gun homicide victims/arrestees in the US while whites account formerican.
If true, those are quite striking statistics given the perpetrators of the killing sprees reported by the UK media are almost always white. I guess this means that the scale of gun crime within the black community is pretty big as it outweighs all the killing sprees perpetrated by whites.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Strange as it may seem, the USA is not a particularly violent society overall (obviously, some parts of it are very violent). It is way more peaceful then most of Latin America, or the Caribbean.
The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.
It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.
Far right terrorism in this country seems mostly to comprise people who are extremely incompetent, but one can't count on that remaining the case.
That bloke who drove into the people outside of the Finsbury Park Mosque is a good example of where gun restrictions do work. As far as I know that guy didn't have a weapon with him, and his plan was to drive into Muslims at another location but he couldn't get near them.
Of course, if you're not fussy about your victims, a vehicle is a very good weapon.
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
It is racist to say that that the “natives” couldn’t feed themselves properly before colonialism which, as you are fully aware, was the point he was making. It was both racist and a lie.
He said they would have relied on plantain otherwise, not they could not feed themselves but the British expanded their diet and production of goods
He said t
Don’t want to get in the middle here but I think you are misreading.
He’s referring to “carbohydrate gratification” not in the sense of food but in terms of short term economic impact (a “sugar rush”) rather than the longer term strategy of coffee and tobacco.
So he’s essentially saying we gave them better investment advice?
I suppose that wealthy farmers have the luxury of making long-term economic decisions without the pressure for near term cash/food and hence should be able to generate higher returns on average
The introduction of cash crops such as coffee and tobacco was forced by an imposition by the Imperialists of taxes such as "hut taxes". The purpose of these imposed taxes was to coerce the africans to either grow cash crops or into wage labour in European owned businesses. Failure to pay the taxes either resulted in compulsory government labour or expropriation of lands.
To depict this as a benefit of colonialism is rather breathtaking in its lack of understanding, and not something that "Global Britain" should be doing.
The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.
It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.
Far right terrorism in this country seems mostly to comprise people who are extremely incompetent, but one can't count on that remaining the case.
Most modern-day terrorism in the West is extremely amateurish. It's not like the nationalist, leftist, and fascist terrorist groups of the 70s and 80s that could go and get training and materiel from foreign governments.
I’ll leave it to your glorious leader to tell you exactly what he thought of gay marriage in 2001 -
“If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.” - B. Johnson. ‘’Friends, Voters, Countrymen', 2001.
I’m not sure how convinced the LGBTQ+ community are by his apparent conversion. Not very is the feedback I’m getting.
To be fair, Peter Tatchell has tried to view the arrival of Boris in Number 10 in a balanced way. His article in the Independent a couple of weeks ago was pretty fair but also set out some indicators that the LGBT community could use to see if Boris was going to be supportive of the LGBT community. I think some of these at least are very reasonable. It would be good if Boris did take action on them.
As an aside, when is someone going to have the sense to ennoble Tatchell. As a voice for reason representing a significant part of British society he would be a huge asset to the second chamber.
Hasn't he said some pretty 'controversial' things about underage sex (mentioned on here I think)? Though he's been courageous in much of his campaigning, I think that might make it a no no.
Not sure. This might be one of those areas where I have not researched enough but as it stands I stick to my view he would be a great asset to an amending and guiding chamber.
I think that back in the 70s - like many on the left like Harriet Harman - he came pretty close to endorsing some of the views espoused by PIE
To be fair, he also says he was totally wrong to advocate abolishing the age of consent.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Of course they can, but it is very difficult.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
There have been 88 homicides in London so far this year. There were 29 deaths in the two attacks alone this weekend. It’s not as easy to kill large numbers with a knife as with guns.
Absolutely. But I suspect that spree killings are a small proportion of the overall number of homicides (don’t know if there are stats)
Look at @Scott_P 's post. Only a small proportion of the US's killing sprees make the news here (I don't know the definition). It's clearly a significant part of the equation, though.
1,733 murders in the US in 2017 were situations where there were multiple victims. So around 10% of the total
The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.
It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.
Far right terrorism in this country seems mostly to comprise people who are extremely incompetent, but one can't count on that remaining the case.
Thankfully they can't just pop into town, buy an assault rifle and box of ammo and head to the mosque.
Night all.
OTOH, it's not hard to get bomb-making materials. Fortunately, the majority of them are too stupid to build a bomb, and/or brag about their plans on social media.
Very few mass killings in Switzerland, but guns are very prevalent.
Ammunition, however, is not. You get a gun without it, and are issued ammo in a national crisis. In the meantime, all you have is a pointy club. It is, of course, posible to get ammo from abroad (e.g. the US) if you're really keen, but you can't just rush out and do it.
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
It is racist to say that that the “natives” couldn’t feed themselves properly before colonialism which, as you are fully aware, was the point he was making. It was both racist and a lie.
He said they would have relied on plantain otherwise, not they could not feed themselves but the British expanded their diet and production of goods
He said t
Don’t want to get in the middle here but I think you are misreading.
He’s referring to “carbohydrate gratification” not in the sense of food but in terms of short term economic impact (a “sugar rush”) rather than the longer term strategy of coffee and tobacco.
So he’s essentially saying we gave them better investment advice?
I suppose that wealthy farmers have the luxury of making long-term economic decisions without the pressure for near term cash/food and hence should be able to generate higher returns on average
The introduction of cash crops such as coffee and tobacco was forced by an imposition by the Imperialists of taxes such as "hut taxes". The purpose of these imposed taxes was to coerce the africans to either grow cash crops or into wage labour in European owned businesses. Failure to pay the taxes either resulted in compulsory government labour or expropriation of lands.
To depict this as a benefit of colonialism is rather breathtaking in its lack of understanding, and not something that "Global Britain" should be doing.
At least we didn’t simply demand the produce and chop their hand off if they didn’t meet their quota, as the Belgians did.
Blacks account for the majority of gun homicide victims/arrestees in the US while whites account formerican.
If true, those are quite striking statistics given the perpetrators of the killing sprees reported by the UK media are almost always white. I guess this means that the scale of gun crime within the black community is pretty big as it outweighs all the killing sprees perpetrated by whites.
Just as most murders in the UK are committed by someone known to the victim, spree killings must be vastly unrepresentative of most gun homicides in the US
Indeed, but the whole US gun crime story is viewed in this country through the lens of spree killings. If they actually did something about gun ownership, I wonder if it would make much difference to the non-spree killings.
If you cut down on gun homicides generally, that would surely be an end in itself.
A bonus if you cut down on domestic acts of terror.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
Strange as it may seem, the USA is not a particularly violent society overall (obviously, some parts of it are very violent). It is way more peaceful then most of Latin America, or the Caribbean.
Wouldn’t fairer comparisons for the US be other developed ‘western’ democracies?
I’ll leave it to your glorious leader to tell you exactly what he thought of gay marriage in 2001 -
“If gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men, or indeed three men and a dog.” - B. Johnson. ‘’Friends, Voters, Countrymen', 2001.
I’m not sure how convinced the LGBTQ+ community are by his apparent conversion. Not very is the feedback I’m getting.
To be fair, Peter Tatchell has tried to view the arrival of Boris in Number 10 in a balanced way. His article in the Independent a couple of weeks ago was pretty fair but also set out some indicators that the LGBT community could use to see if Boris was going to be supportive of the LGBT community. I think some of these at least are very reasonable. It would be good if Boris did take action on them.
As an aside, when is someone going to have the sense to ennoble Tatchell. As a voice for reason representing a significant part of British society he would be a huge asset to the second chamber.
Hasn't he said some pretty 'controversial' things about underage sex (mentioned on here I think)? Though he's been courageous in much of his campaigning, I think that might make it a no no.
Not sure. This might be one of those areas where I have not researched enough but as it stands I stick to my view he would be a great asset to an amending and guiding chamber.
I think that back in the 70s - like many on the left like Harriet Harman - he came pretty close to endorsing some of the views espoused by PIE
To be fair, he also says he was totally wrong to advocate abolishing the age of consent.
It is also worth noting that in the Seventies through to the nineties the age of consent for homosevual sex was 21 years. Aguing for reducing or eliminating the age of consent needs to be put in the context of sexual activity that is perfectly legal now after 16th birthday.
I was thinking that it might be more the other way around. That is, stricter gun ownership laws would make the killing sprees less likely, but might not make much difference to the day-to-day incidents.
Stricter guns laws make gun killings more difficult generally. The difference between the UK and the US in this respect is quite staggering.
There's no point in beating about the bush. Americans could slash the number of guns deaths in the country dramatically, overnite, if they wanted to and took the necessary and obvious measures to do so.
I’m not sure it would. The evidence from London is that if criminals want guns they can get guns. Certainly stricter laws (why are semi automatics a constitutional right?) would reduce the incidence of accidental deaths and the kind of mass killings that are all to frequent. But are they the bulk of gun based homicides?
SNIP
SNIP
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
There have been 88 homicides in London so far this year. There were 29 deaths in the two attacks alone this weekend. It’s not as easy to kill large numbers with a knife as with guns.
Absolutely. But I suspect that spree killings are a small proportion of the overall number of homicides (don’t know if there are stats)
Look at @Scott_P 's post. Only a small proportion of the US's killing sprees make the news here (I don't know the definition). It's clearly a significant part of the equation, though.
I think they count anything from three or more than three as a mass killing
Good effort from Burns and Roy to make it through the seven overs to stumps.
If it doesn’t rain, all three results could still be possible.
I'd want good odds on an England win
In all Test history there have been 20 scores of 398+ in the 4th innings, but only one of those was in less than 100 6-ball overs, which was in 2002 at Christchurch when Nathan Astle scored a remarkable 222 at 8 runs an over as New Zealand scored 451 in 93 overs to lose by 98 runs.
It would take a career-best performance from at least one of Roy, Buttler or Stokes - I don't think any of the other players are even theoretically capable.
it is a joke in modern times that every Tom Dick and Harry gets these pathetic baubles for doing hee haw.
Pause.
OK, if you give me the instructions on how to do "hee haw", I'll see what I can do. Although my legs aren't as good as they were. Does it involve lifting?
Jeez I come back and everyone is still showing up @HYUFD. Will people please stop out.
@HYUFD as a diehard remainer is in a very difficult position. He voted for something which the party he says he supports completely rejects. His vote shows that he disagrees with the current position of the Conservative Party. This is tricky for him because he has spent many hours working for the party and sought office in its name.
Please cut him some slack as he tries to reconcile himself to the fact that the party no longer wants him.
Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal
Good to hear.r party.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins the nave left in March. We must Leave in October.
If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first
You disagree with this governmen logic you would have no option but to support them.
As I said before I was always on the borderline between Leave and Remain and would have voted ill
You opposed leaving the single market and customs Union. We can't trust your principles.
You voted remain. Ergo you are a diehard remainer. Ergo you are in the wrong party.
Nope, I backed the Withdrawal Agreement and back No Deal now if necessary to ensure Brexit on 31st October. By definition that does not make me a diehard Remainer, diehard Remainers by definition refuse to respect the Brexit vote and want to stop us leaving the EU on 31st October.
As I also made clear I now back leaving the customs union to enable us to do our own trade deals and the single market in the short term too to enable us to end free movement, I would only reconsider joining the EEA in a decade at the earliest as I also made clear I would never now support us rejoining the full EU
ie you can't be trusted to maintain a set of political beliefs. You are a diehard remainer.
You are also a political tart. Just like Chuka or Anna. You change your views depending on the prevailing wind.
It's not pathetic, as some people might think. Just that you have no underlying principles that can be relied on.
A cheeky request. My partner is researching DEFRA. Unfortunately, she did the work on Gove. Now he isn't there. Anyone know Theresa Villiers' record on LGBT rights? They seem to be pretty liberal, am I right?
The current Defra team is incidentally probably the most strongly pro-animal welfare that Defra has ever had (and Gove was good too, as is the shadow SoS Sue Hayman). Animal issues and LGBT rights are both outside the usual left-right spectrum.
Which has to be a good thing. It's so irritating when people think that if you support X you must therefore support unrelated issue Y, because they're both left-wing or right-wing. It reduces all human thought to one dimension.
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
It is racist to say that that the “
He said t
Don’t want to get in the middle here but I think you are misreading.
He’s referring to “carbohydrate gratification” not in the sense of food but in terms of short term economic impact (a “sugar rush”) rather than the longer term strategy of coffee and tobacco.
So he’s essentially saying we gave them better investment advice?
I suppose that wealthy farmers have the luxury of making long-term economic decisions without the pressure for near term cash/food and hence should be able to generate higher returns on average
The introduction of cash crops such as coffee and tobacco was forced by an imposition by the Imperialists of taxes such as "hut taxes". The purpose of these imposed taxes was to coerce the africans to either grow cash crops or into wage labour in European owned businesses. Failure to pay the taxes either resulted in compulsory government labour or expropriation of lands.
To depict this as a benefit of colonialism is rather breathtaking in its lack of understanding, and not something that "Global Britain" should be doing.
At least we didn’t simply demand the produce and chop their hand off if they didn’t meet their quota, as the Belgians did.
That took place under the "Congo Free State" when the Congo was a personal possession of King Leoplold. The Belgian government didn't take over until later, indeed it took over in large part because of Leopold's brutalities.
Rubbish, half the Cabinet even under Boris voted Remain, however they just respect the will of the people to leave the EU unlike diehard Remainers who have still refused to respect democracy and the Leave vote and opposed both the Withdrawal Agreement and No Deal
Good to hear.r party.
If Jeremy Corbyn wins the nave left in March. We must Leave in October.
If diehard Remainers wish to try and rejoin the EU after that fine but the first vote must be respected first
You disagree with this governmen logic you would have no option but to support them.
As I said before I was always on the borderline between Leave and Remain and would have voted ill
You opposed leaving the single market and customs Union. We can't trust your principles.
You voted remain. Ergo you are a diehard remainer. Ergo you are in the wrong party.
Nope, I backed the Withdrawal Agreement and back No Deal now if necessary to ensure Brexit on 31st October. By definition that does not make me a diehard Remainer, diehard Remainers by definition refuse to respect the Brexit vote and want to stop us leaving the EU on 31st October.
As I also made clear I now back leaving the customs union to enable us to do our own trade deals and the single market in the short term too to enable us to end free movement, I would only reconsider joining the EEA in a decade at the earliest as I also made clear I would never now support us rejoining the full EU
ie you can't be trusted to maintain a set of political beliefs. You are a diehard remainer.
You are also a political tart. Just like Chuka or Anna. You change your views depending on the prevailing wind.
It's not pathetic, as some people might think. Just that you have no underlying principles that can be relied on.
No. I have always opposed joining the Euro and given rejoining the EU likely requires that I oppose that too.
I also respect democracy, if you have a referendum result you implement it, if you have a general election result you implement it, otherwise the whole principle of a democratic nation dies and the peaceful transition of power dies with it
re Stark_dawning "I used to do quite a bit of work in Swansea several years ago. I don't think I ever encountered a local who didn't call it Swansea."
Well, speaking as someone who was born and raised in Swansea, if I was speaking in Welsh to my father I would refer to it as Abertawe, if speaking in English to my mother then it would be Swansea - the joys of bilingualism eh?
FWIW, I find Johnson's comments on the Welsh language to be snide and condescending, but I would expect no better from him.
Naturally. When with my German friends I refer to Koeln, not Cologne, but I wouldn't expect the German Government to put the English version up on their motorways to help me find the place.
Why not ask the people of Abertawe/Swansea what they want to call it, and stick to that? Would save a lot of trouble.
Switzerland is an interesting example - four (three and a bit) national languages, yet no multi lingual road signs at all. Each Canton decides which language its signs are in, and that’s it.
Have you any idea of the difference in the rate of killings? It's about a couple of hundred per year here against 10,000 plus in the USA. There is only one explanation for such a staggering difference, and it's the obvious one.
It’s not a simple as you think.
The academic papers I looked at (a while ago) suggest that guns are the weapon of choice. If guns were less available it would reduce the number of gun-related homicides but that other types of homicide would increase. The desire to kill would remain unchanged.
Indeed. There are plenty of places with plenty of guns. Canada for one. Summat else is going on.
I think the mass killings are partly due to social media glorification but a lot to do with the disastrous state of mental health provision.
Suicides would probably be reduced (it’s easier to kill yourself with a gun)
Gang based crime would remain. As we’ve seen in London this year it’s easy to kill with a knife
There have been 88 homicides in London so far this year. There were 29 deaths in the two attacks alone this weekend. It’s not as easy to kill large numbers with a knife as with guns.
Absolutely. But I suspect that spree killings are a small proportion of the overall number of homicides (don’t know if there are stats)
Look at @Scott_P 's post. Only a small proportion of the US's killing sprees make the news here (I don't know the definition). It's clearly a significant part of the equation, though.
1,733 murders in the US in 2017 were situations where there were multiple victims. So around 10% of the total
re Stark_dawning "I used to do quite a bit of work in Swansea several years ago. I don't think I ever encountered a local who didn't call it Swansea."
Well, speaking as someone who was born and raised in Swansea, if I was speaking in Welsh to my father I would refer to it as Abertawe, if speaking in English to my mother then it would be Swansea - the joys of bilingualism eh?
FWIW, I find Johnson's comments on the Welsh language to be snide and condescending, but I would expect no better from him.
Naturally. When with my German friends I refer to Koeln, not Cologne, but I wouldn't expect the German Government to put the English version up on their motorways to help me find the place.
Why not ask the people of Abertawe/Swansea what they want to call it, and stick to that? Would save a lot of trouble.
Switzerland is an interesting example - four (three and a bit) national languages, yet no multi lingual road signs at all. Each Canton decides which language its signs are in, and that’s it.
Bern and Fribourg and Valais are bilingual, Graubünden is trilingual.
The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.
It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.
Far right terrorism in this country seems mostly to comprise people who are extremely incompetent, but one can't count on that remaining the case.
Thankfully they can't just pop into town, buy an assault rifle and box of ammo and head to the mosque.
Night all.
@SandyRentool Just got back from doing the summer Sunday-only train from Exeter to Okehampton
A cheeky request. My partner is researching DEFRA. Unfortunately, she did the work on Gove. Now he isn't there. Anyone know Theresa Villiers' record on LGBT rights? They seem to be pretty liberal, am I right?
The current Defra team is incidentally probably the most strongly pro-animal welfare that Defra has ever had (and Gove was good too, as is the shadow SoS Sue Hayman). Animal issues and LGBT rights are both outside the usual left-right spectrum.
Which has to be a good thing. It's so irritating when people think that if you support X you must therefore support unrelated issue Y, because they're both left-wing or right-wing. It reduces all human thought to one dimension.
Thanks for that, Nick. That confirms our hasty research. My partner had produced her due diligence report on DEFRA last month to present tomorrow. So outlined Gove's liberal viewpoint over dinner. I had to inform her, this was all very well, but he wasn't there any more. Cue some panic. Shows how some pore over Cabinet reshuffles, but it passes others by. And yes, I agree on the X and Y point. Although, too often politicians tend to use inductive reasoning and work from the chosen position on the left/right spectrum to form their opinions on issue X. I guess it is easy to be seduced into the Party line. It is all too common, so it is always refreshing to see otherwise.
No. I have always opposed joining the Euro and given rejoining the EU likely requires that I oppose that too.
I also respect democracy, if you have a referendum result you implement it, if you have a general election result you implement it, otherwise the whole principle of a democratic nation dies and the peaceful transition of power dies with it
Nah. No one's talking about the euro where did that come from so did I who cares.
You can also respect democracy but you don't have to agree with the result. Or as I said you would support any party that won a general election.
You don't agree with leaving the EU, the single marketand customs union. The Conservative Party wants to do all those things. It is therefore not the party for you. Unless you are an unprincipled charlatan.
You voted remain, you want to remain. The Conservative Party is a leave party and hence you are in the wrong party.
The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.
It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.
Far right terrorism in this country seems mostly to comprise people who are extremely incompetent, but one can't count on that remaining the case.
Thankfully they can't just pop into town, buy an assault rifle and box of ammo and head to the mosque.
Night all.
@SandyRentool Just got back from doing the summer Sunday-only train from Exeter to Okehampton
But did you then take the Dartmoor Railway line for the 10 minute climb up to Meldon Quarry?
No. I have always opposed joining the Euro and given rejoining the EU likely requires that I oppose that too.
I also respect democracy, if you have a referendum result you implement it, if you have a general election result you implement it, otherwise the whole principle of a democratic nation dies and the peaceful transition of power dies with it
Nah. No one's talking about the euro where did that come from so did I who cares.
You can also respect democracy but you don't have to agree with the result. Or as I said you would support any party that won a general election.
You don't agree with leaving the EU, the single marketand customs union. The Conservative Party wants to do all those things. It is therefore not the party for you. Unless you are an unprincipled charlatan.
You voted remain, you want to remain. The Conservative Party is a leave party and hence you are in the wrong party.
Hold firm to your beliefs.
To rejoin the EU we would likely have to join the Euro, there would be no repeat of the opt out John Major negotiated.
You may not agree with the result or the party that won the general election but you still have to implement the result otherwise there is no point in having a democratic system.
I do now agree with Leaving the EU, for as I said rejoining would require the Euro and I do agree with leaving the customs union to do our own free trade deals and I do now agree with leaving the single market to end free movement until immigration is brought under control. I remain and always will be a Tory until my dying day
If it is to be a people v politicians election, I take it not a single Conservative MP will be re-selected? Nor any councillors? And replaced with randoms? They are after all politicians.
Talking of gun crime and terrorism ..... the NCA have seized a Passat arriving at the Port of Dover from Calais with a huge haul of lethal firearms. An Irishman is appearing in court on Monday. See http://ow.ly/PUV850vmAF6.
Sorry. Utterly irrelevant. Unless it has been cleared with the Supreme Leader for Life. If it hasn't, Ms Fox better watch her step. Free thinking is not encouraged.
Talking of gun crime and terrorism ..... the NCA have seized a Passat arriving at the Port of Dover from Calais with a huge haul of lethal firearms. An Irishman is appearing in court on Monday. See http://ow.ly/PUV850vmAF6.
Is Margate Magistrates Court now the court of choice for these kind of cases? They'll use Dreamland next.
No. I have always opposed joining the Euro and given rejoining the EU likely requires that I oppose that too.
I also respect democracy, if you have a referendum result you implement it, if you have a general election result you implement it, otherwise the whole principle of a democratic nation dies and the peaceful transition of power dies with it
Nah. No one's talking about the euro where did that come from so did I who cares.
You can also respect democracy but you don't have to agree with the result. Or as I said you would support any party that won a general election.
You don't agree with leaving the EU, the single marketand customs union. The Conservative Party wants to do all those things. It is therefore not the party for you. Unless you are an unprincipled charlatan.
You voted remain, you want to remain. The Conservative Party is a leave party and hence you are in the wrong party.
Hold firm to your beliefs.
To rejoin the EU we would likely have to join the Euro, there would be no repeat of the opt out John Major negotiated.
You may not agree with the result or the party that won the general election but you still have to implement the result otherwise there is no point in having a democratic system.
I do now agree with Leaving the EU, for as I said rejoining would require the Euro and I do agree with leaving the customs union to do our own free trade deals and I do now agree with leaving the single market to end free movement until immigration is brought under control. I remain and always will be a Tory until my dying day
You have no idea what rejoining would mean. Wholly irrelevant to the discussion.
You don't want to leave in the first place and "your" party does.
"I do agree with this...I do agree with that..."
You have, if I may say shamelessly, changed your political beliefs. Based on nothing other than the other faction gaining power. You are simply not to be trusted.
Plus it doesn't matter whether you have changed your beliefs although it doesn't reflect well on you. In the only official poll on the matter you registered as a remainer. A diehard remainer.
If it is to be a people v politicians election, I take it not a single Conservative MP will be re-selected? Nor any councillors? And replaced with randoms? They are after all politicians.
Probably the Daily Mail will get to choose which MPs are politicians.
Sorry. Utterly irrelevant. Unless it has been cleared with the Supreme Leader for Life. If it hasn't, Ms Fox better watch her step. Free thinking is not encouraged.
If the fairisle cardiganed ones can do it, it can't be that hard, can it?
Good effort from Burns and Roy to make it through the seven overs to stumps.
If it doesn’t rain, all three results could still be possible.
I'd want good odds on an England win
In all Test history there have been 20 scores of 398+ in the 4th innings, but only one of those was in less than 100 6-ball overs, which was in 2002 at Christchurch when Nathan Astle scored a remarkable 222 at 8 runs an over as New Zealand scored 451 in 93 overs to lose by 98 runs.
It would take a career-best performance from at least one of Roy, Buttler or Stokes - I don't think any of the other players are even theoretically capable.
Barstow is but he is in terrible form
Bairstow should make way for Foakes (who should have been playing at Edgbaston.) Rashid should come in for Moen Ali. Archer plays instead of Anderson, if fit but I suspect he isn't. There are several reasonable alternatives for his place if his fitness cannot be trusted.
Keep the rest as they are. (I wouldn't have picked Denley for the first Test and I would have Root at four, but no point in changing for Lords.)
Does anybody know if Woakes is fully fit? My guess is that the Selectors took a chance with him too but got away with it, just about.
Again you are a shining example of the lack of intellectual capacity or ethics in the Conservative Party. In the same article he said “ "Consider Uganda, pearl of Africa, as an example of the British record. The British planted coffee and cotton and tobacco, and they were broadly right. If left to their own devices, the natives would rely on nothing but the instant carbohydrate gratification of the plantain.”. If you don’t see why that is not racist then there is no hope for you.
It is not racist but fact to say the British brought coffee and cotton plants to Uganda
It is racist to say that that the “
He said t
Don’t want to get in the middle here but I think you are misreading.
He’s referring to “carbohydrate gratification” not in the sense of food but in terms of short term economic impact (a “sugar rush”) rather than the longer term strategy of coffee and tobacco.
So he’s essentially saying we gave them better investment advice?
I suppose that wealthy farmers have the luxury of making long-term economic decisions without the pressure for near term cash/food and hence should be able to generate higher returns on average
The introduction of cash crops such as coffee and tobacco was forced by an imposition by the Imperialists of taxes such as "hut taxes". The purpose of these imposed taxes was to coerce the africans to either grow cash crops or into wage labour in European owned businesses. Failure to pay the taxes either resulted in compulsory government labour or expropriation of lands.
To depict this as a benefit of colonialism is rather breathtaking in its lack of understanding, and not something that "Global Britain" should be doing.
At least we didn’t simply demand the produce and chop their hand off if they didn’t meet their quota, as the Belgians did.
That took place under the "Congo Free State" when the Congo was a personal possession of King Leoplold. The Belgian government didn't take over until later, indeed it took over in large part because of Leopold's brutalities.
Good old PB. I read Neal Ascherson's book on that very topic on my recent holiday.
Talking of gun crime and terrorism ..... the NCA have seized a Passat arriving at the Port of Dover from Calais with a huge haul of lethal firearms. An Irishman is appearing in court on Monday. See http://ow.ly/PUV850vmAF6.
That's interesting. As the report indicates, the rate of gun crime in the UK is amongst the lowest in the world so the arrival of a consignment like that would have made a significant impact.
You'd have to imagine much of the weaponry was bought to order. The scale makes you wonder whether the purchasers were quasi-political or terrorist groups rather than normal criminal gangs.
Edit: This wouldn't be the Provos selling off surplus stocks, would it?
... is the plot of Leon Uris's "A God in Ruins", set over the 2008 US election cycle. I'm constantly surprised no-one's tried it yet. Possibly it isn't worth the physical risk such a platform would invite.
Talking of gun crime and terrorism ..... the NCA have seized a Passat arriving at the Port of Dover from Calais with a huge haul of lethal firearms. An Irishman is appearing in court on Monday. See http://ow.ly/PUV850vmAF6.
That's interesting. As the report indicates, the rate of gun crime in the UK is amongst the lowest in the world so the arrival of a consignment like that would have made a significant impact.
You'd have to imagine much of the weaponry was bought to order. The scale makes you wonder whether the purchasers were quasi-political or terrorist groups rather than normal criminal gangs.
Edit: This wouldn't be the Provos selling off surplus stocks, would it?
So the Revolutionary Communists and the Tories will be allies ?
For one election only to deliver Brexit and defeat the diehard Remainers maybe, Claire Fox and Boris Johnson and the Brexit Party and Tories on one side, Alistair Campbell and Michael Heseltine and the LDs and Greens and SNP and PC on the other and Corbyn Labour in the middle still trying to be all things to all people
Talking of gun crime and terrorism ..... the NCA have seized a Passat arriving at the Port of Dover from Calais with a huge haul of lethal firearms. An Irishman is appearing in court on Monday. See http://ow.ly/PUV850vmAF6.
That's interesting. As the report indicates, the rate of gun crime in the UK is amongst the lowest in the world so the arrival of a consignment like that would have made a significant impact.
You'd have to imagine much of the weaponry was bought to order. The scale makes you wonder whether the purchasers were quasi-political or terrorist groups rather than normal criminal gangs.
Edit: This wouldn't be the Provos selling off surplus stocks, would it?
and shipping them via the pretty route?
Who knows where they originated, but the UK is an odd destination for that sort of weaponry. There are no major conflicts going on here, gun-crime is low and professional criminals tend not to use guns; one imagines the street price of the weapons would have been fairly low because they would be too hot. Unless of course they were being delivered to order.
On which topic. Are you of the opinion that a pact with the Brexit Party would increase or decrease the Tory vote?
At the moment increase it if the Brexit Party stand down or do very little campaigning in Tory v Labour and Tory v LD marginals in return for the Tory Party standing down or doing very little campaigning in 'safe' Labour Leave seats in the North and South Wales and Midlands
So I (my better half actually, but I've taken the blame) spilled lots of wine all down my evening shirt at a wedding reception yesterday.
I've got another black tie event next weekend, what's a good place to get a decent replacement for under £100? Doesn't need to be made to measure.
You will find as you get older that you will wear a normal cream cotton shirt instead. If you want something that formal go to Hackett or even Lewin will do you a good one.
Talking of gun crime and terrorism ..... the NCA have seized a Passat arriving at the Port of Dover from Calais with a huge haul of lethal firearms. An Irishman is appearing in court on Monday. See http://ow.ly/PUV850vmAF6.
That's interesting. As the report indicates, the rate of gun crime in the UK is amongst the lowest in the world so the arrival of a consignment like that would have made a significant impact.
You'd have to imagine much of the weaponry was bought to order. The scale makes you wonder whether the purchasers were quasi-political or terrorist groups rather than normal criminal gangs.
Edit: This wouldn't be the Provos selling off surplus stocks, would it?
and shipping them via the pretty route?
Who knows where they originated, but the UK is an odd destination for that sort of weaponry. There are no major conflicts going on here, gun-crime is low and professional criminals tend not to use guns; one imagines the street price of the weapons would have been fairly low because they would be too hot. Unless of course they were being delivered to order.
Balkans probably. It could be a dissident Irish group re-stocking. Who knows? But it is important to bear this case in mind next time someone says we can waive customs checks to avoid delays after a no deal Brexit.
On which topic. Are you of the opinion that a pact with the Brexit Party would increase or decrease the Tory vote?
At the moment increase it if the Brexit Party stand down or do very little campaigning in Tory v Labour and Tory v LD marginals in return for the Tory Party standing down or doing very little campaigning in 'safe' Labour Leave seats in the North and South Wales and Midlands
Doing very little campaigning seems to be de rigeur for the Brexit Party already.
Talking of gun crime and terrorism ..... the NCA have seized a Passat arriving at the Port of Dover from Calais with a huge haul of lethal firearms. An Irishman is appearing in court on Monday. See http://ow.ly/PUV850vmAF6.
That's interesting. As the report indicates, the rate of gun crime in the UK is amongst the lowest in the world so the arrival of a consignment like that would have made a significant impact.
You'd have to imagine much of the weaponry was bought to order. The scale makes you wonder whether the purchasers were quasi-political or terrorist groups rather than normal criminal gangs.
Edit: This wouldn't be the Provos selling off surplus stocks, would it?
and shipping them via the pretty route?
Who knows where they originated, but the UK is an odd destination for that sort of weaponry. There are no major conflicts going on here, gun-crime is low and professional criminals tend not to use guns; one imagines the street price of the weapons would have been fairly low because they would be too hot. Unless of course they were being delivered to order.
Balkans probably. It could be a dissident Irish group re-stocking. Who knows? But it is important to bear this case in mind next time someone says we can waive customs checks to avoid delays after a no deal Brexit.
Yep. And just wait for that shiny new free trade deal with the USA. Who knows what buccaneering opportunities new gun laws will open up?
So the Revolutionary Communists and the Tories will be allies ?
For one election only to deliver Brexit and defeat the diehard Remainers maybe, Claire Fox and Boris Johnson and the Brexit Party and Tories on one side, Alistair Campbell and Michael Heseltine and the LDs and Greens and SNP and PC on the other and Corbyn Labour in the middle still trying to be all things to all people
I am disappointed that you, as a diehard remainer, are speculating on ways you will be defeated.
Good effort from Burns and Roy to make it through the seven overs to stumps.
If it doesn’t rain, all three results could still be possible.
I'd want good odds on an England win
In all Test history there have been 20 scores of 398+ in the 4th innings, but only one of those was in less than 100 6-ball overs, which was in 2002 at Christchurch when Nathan Astle scored a remarkable 222 at 8 runs an over as New Zealand scored 451 in 93 overs to lose by 98 runs.
It would take a career-best performance from at least one of Roy, Buttler or Stokes - I don't think any of the other players are even theoretically capable.
Barstow is but he is in terrible form
Yes. His Test form has been terrible for so long that I forgot about him. An average of 22.05 over the last 12 months.
I think you will also find that sweeping generalisations are unhelpful. For example, large parts of Montgomeryshire and a significant chunk of north-western Shropshire are Welsh-speaking, as are the western Valleys and Carmarthenshire. Ystradgynlais is a town with a significant Welsh language population. Equally, speak it in large parts of Aberystwyth and you will get blank looks. You will hear it spoken in Llwyngwril, but not in Fairbourne five miles to the north.
Is it not also the case that speakers of different Welsh dialects would likely be unintelligable to each other?
I wouldn't go so far as to say 'unintelligible.' There are very significant dialectical differences, more so than in English. That means that, for example, when I am speaking in Welsh to somebody from Arfon I have to keep adjusting my ideas for certain words and sometimes I will get funny looks (although that might also be because my Welsh is not very good)!
Tcations in Welsh and he spread of Welsh language television and radio, so it may be that the spoken language will become more homogenous from hereon in.
Thanks Ydoethur. That's very interesting and kind of hopeful.
May I ask if you share my irritation with dual language names and road signs?
The Italians don't find it necessary to tell English tourists that they are approaching Florence rather than Firenze. Nor do the Germans bother to translate Ausfahrt for us at the exit to motorways. So why do we need telling that Caerdydd is really Cardiff in disguise? And if the English want to call Abertawe something completely diferent, that's our business and we shouldn't require the locals to accommodate our parochialism by putting up helpful hints that it's what we call Swansea. As for Araf, if you need the English translation painted on the roads to tell you what it means, you shouldn't really be driving.
You're in Wales, ffs. Cope with the local anguage or stay at home. No?
Try driving in Belgium. The city of 'Mons' disappears from road signs as you pass through Dutch speaking areas and becomes 'Bergen'. Confused the heck out of me first time I encountered it.
The USA has many problems with guns but the discussion today should be primarily about far right terrorism. Attack after attack is politically motivated. But there seems no will to take that on.
It’s a global movement. Sooner or later there will be an attack like that here too.
Far right terrorism in this country seems mostly to comprise people who are extremely incompetent, but one can't count on that remaining the case.
Thankfully they can't just pop into town, buy an assault rifle and box of ammo and head to the mosque.
Night all.
@SandyRentool Just got back from doing the summer Sunday-only train from Exeter to Okehampton
But did you then take the Dartmoor Railway line for the 10 minute climb up to Meldon Quarry?
Alas, no, the timings were all wrong, unless I'd wanted to get back to Ilford really, really late!
Might have to stay overnight in Exeter, get the bus to Okehampton and then Dartmoor shuttle. But I'm prioritising official National Rail services for the moment.
Piers Morgan re tweets unsubstantiated rumours of left wing people vandalising cars and stuff. So that we will think 20 people just got shot dead, and more than 40 wounded is somehow OK? Does he and you think we are really that thick?
12 days into government he's decided the advisors are the problem. Suggests he doesn't like their advice much. New advisors 87 days before the most revolutionary government policy in nearly 75 years, arguably longer. Hope the new ones will be just super at the advicey stuff.
Boris' strategy to win an election essentially relies on the stupidity, fractiousness, cowardice and arrogance of the Labour Party. But it's not the Corbynistas' - it's the rest of Labour.
Corbynism has always been a Field of Dreams political movement - build it and they will come. Take over Labour, shut out the doubters, espouse socialism, and eventually the country will see the horrors and come round. It relies on its current figurehead almost because of its failures rather than in spite of them - he's vague and almost displays Trumpian vacuousness on policy - so unites various leftist strands who would other be at each others' throats. He annoys 'the right people' and allows those who aren't victims to play that role politically. He's a rallying point to people who have little in common other than wanting to control Labour and use it to push their particular brand of leftism. They're fine, because Corbyn losing isn't a disaster, as long as it keeps Labour shifting towards the far left.
The stupid, arrogant, cowards are those on the soft and centre left who know in their heart of hearts he's an appalling individual but think they can vaguely cower and it will all be ok. In the case of the former, it's a refusal to admit they acted dreadfully by hitching their wagons to Corbyn, and devalued any morals they claimed to have. In the case of the latter, it's a failure to stand up for what they know to be right, other than to murmur disgruntlement in the hope it al goes away.
@MJW Corbyn had a whole manifesto of policy, it is generally his opponents on the right of the party who will talk vaguely about aspiration and say things that nobody could disagree with... which sounds good until you realise nobody can disagree with it because they are just saying they want good things not actual policy. Notice when CUK started it had very little to say on actual policy, lots of the stuff they put out with the exclusion of remain orientated stuff could have been put out by PR people with no interest or knowledge of politics.
Despite this vagueness they still couldn't attract people, I think left wing voters are more attracted by policy than vague words about aspiration, one of the big problems the Labour right has is they have had very little to actually say beyond I don't like it.
Arguably the one policy some of them have had is another referendum, although that has been pushed from the left as well so it isn't even theirs, the Labour right probably contains as many (if not more) against another referendum than the Labour left. Now it is pretty much party policy anyway to have a 2nd ref so it isn't much of a different policy position.
The main others things that come to mind are keeping trident there was a bit of debate about with the right strongly in support and there have been various complaints on the right about the tuition fees policy but maybe for tactical reasons they haven't pushed on that one too strongly....
Their main policy seems to be not being Corbyn (pro Trident is second), which would probably be more internally successful in other political parties.
12 days into government he's decided the advisors are the problem. Suggests he doesn't like their advice much. New advisors 87 days before the most revolutionary government policy in nearly 75 years, arguably longer. Hope the new ones will be just super at the advicey stuff.
Good riddance. May was getting crap advice. And that May's advisors didn't believe in Brexit isn't surprising and explains a lot.
Comments
My point is simply “gun control” is a very simplistic answer. Life is more complicated than that. It’s part of the solution but not a panacea.
Fighting the current type of ring-wing terrorism will prove harder than fighting al-Qaeda or ISIS, as it will be akin to fighting militant Islamism. It will be a battle of ideas, more than a convention counter-terrorism campaign.
Leaving the single market and customs union are a necessary requirement to respect the Leave campaign's promise to end free movement and do our own trade deals though I would not necessarily oppose rejoining the single market in a decade or so once immigration has been brought under control, though I would still oppose rejoining the full EU.
I have always opposed Corbyn's policies and always will, if Corbyn won a general election I would respect the voters decision but continue to oppose his government and campaign for a Tory victory at the subsequent general election
I'll say good night.
You voted remain. Ergo you are a diehard remainer. Ergo you are in the wrong party.
Steve Smith scored his second century of the match to ensure England needs to chase down a massive total in the fourth innings or bat out the final day to avoid defeat."
https://www.news.com.au/sport/cricket/live-australia-vs-england-day-four-of-the-first-ashes-test-at-edgbaston/live-coverage/fcb406bf5de1e1cd4328ad17df9397b7
Let’s say it’s an average of 4 killings (assuming 2 is the minimum to qualify as s mass killing) then you are talking about 1000 homicides a year
Statista said there were 17,284 murder/non-negligent manslaughter deaths in 2017. 1,000 is significant but still less than 5%
As I also made clear I now back leaving the customs union to enable us to do our own trade deals and the single market in the short term too to enable us to end free movement, I would only reconsider joining the EEA in a decade at the earliest as I also made clear I would never now support us rejoining the full EU
Night all.
Of course, if you're not fussy about your victims, a vehicle is a very good weapon.
To depict this as a benefit of colonialism is rather breathtaking in its lack of understanding, and not something that "Global Britain" should be doing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251888/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-victim-offender-situation/
Wouldn’t fairer comparisons for the US be other developed ‘western’ democracies?
You are also a political tart. Just like Chuka or Anna. You change your views depending on the prevailing wind.
It's not pathetic, as some people might think. Just that you have no underlying principles that can be relied on.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/11500/theresa_villiers/chipping_barnet/votes
The current Defra team is incidentally probably the most strongly pro-animal welfare that Defra has ever had (and Gove was good too, as is the shadow SoS Sue Hayman). Animal issues and LGBT rights are both outside the usual left-right spectrum.
Which has to be a good thing. It's so irritating when people think that if you support X you must therefore support unrelated issue Y, because they're both left-wing or right-wing. It reduces all human thought to one dimension.
I also respect democracy, if you have a referendum result you implement it, if you have a general election result you implement it, otherwise the whole principle of a democratic nation dies and the peaceful transition of power dies with it
Switzerland is an interesting example - four (three and a bit) national languages, yet no multi lingual road signs at all. Each Canton decides which language its signs are in, and that’s it.
Just got back from doing the summer Sunday-only train from Exeter to Okehampton
Shows how some pore over Cabinet reshuffles, but it passes others by.
And yes, I agree on the X and Y point. Although, too often politicians tend to use inductive reasoning and work from the chosen position on the left/right spectrum to form their opinions on issue X. I guess it is easy to be seduced into the Party line.
It is all too common, so it is always refreshing to see otherwise.
You can also respect democracy but you don't have to agree with the result. Or as I said you would support any party that won a general election.
You don't agree with leaving the EU, the single marketand customs union. The Conservative Party wants to do all those things. It is therefore not the party for you. Unless you are an unprincipled charlatan.
You voted remain, you want to remain. The Conservative Party is a leave party and hence you are in the wrong party.
Hold firm to your beliefs.
"Like a flaccid elephant" would be more appropriate.
https://twitter.com/mshelicat/status/1158128725575254018?s=21
https://www.dartmoor-railway-sa.org/services
You may not agree with the result or the party that won the general election but you still have to implement the result otherwise there is no point in having a democratic system.
I do now agree with Leaving the EU, for as I said rejoining would require the Euro and I do agree with leaving the customs union to do our own free trade deals and I do now agree with leaving the single market to end free movement until immigration is brought under control. I remain and always will be a Tory until my dying day
They are after all politicians.
https://twitter.com/RD_Mullin/status/1158105040818565121
https://www.conservativehome.com/video/2019/08/watch-could-a-tory-brexit-party-pact-happen-of-course-it-could-replies-claire-fox.html
If it hasn't, Ms Fox better watch her step. Free thinking is not encouraged.
You don't want to leave in the first place and "your" party does.
"I do agree with this...I do agree with that..."
You have, if I may say shamelessly, changed your political beliefs. Based on nothing other than the other faction gaining power. You are simply not to be trusted.
Plus it doesn't matter whether you have changed your beliefs although it doesn't reflect well on you. In the only official poll on the matter you registered as a remainer. A diehard remainer.
Keep the rest as they are. (I wouldn't have picked Denley for the first Test and I would have Root at four, but no point in changing for Lords.)
Does anybody know if Woakes is fully fit? My guess is that the Selectors took a chance with him too but got away with it, just about.
You'd have to imagine much of the weaponry was bought to order. The scale makes you wonder whether the purchasers were quasi-political or terrorist groups rather than normal criminal gangs.
Edit: This wouldn't be the Provos selling off surplus stocks, would it?
I've got another black tie event next weekend, what's a good place to get a decent replacement for under £100? Doesn't need to be made to measure.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/04/police-arrest-24-people-following-free-tommy-demonstration
Might have to stay overnight in Exeter, get the bus to Okehampton and then Dartmoor shuttle. But I'm prioritising official National Rail services for the moment.
So that we will think 20 people just got shot dead, and more than 40 wounded is somehow OK?
Does he and you think we are really that thick?
https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1158037927764606977?s=20
https://twitter.com/BetoORourke/status/1158040005891092481?s=20
https://twitter.com/PeteButtigieg/status/1158060366489903106?s=20
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1158102732085108736?s=20
New advisors 87 days before the most revolutionary government policy in nearly 75 years, arguably longer. Hope the new ones will be just super at the advicey stuff.
Corbynism has always been a Field of Dreams political movement - build it and they will come. Take over Labour, shut out the doubters, espouse socialism, and eventually the country will see the horrors and come round. It relies on its current figurehead almost because of its failures rather than in spite of them - he's vague and almost displays Trumpian vacuousness on policy - so unites various leftist strands who would other be at each others' throats. He annoys 'the right people' and allows those who aren't victims to play that role politically. He's a rallying point to people who have little in common other than wanting to control Labour and use it to push their particular brand of leftism. They're fine, because Corbyn losing isn't a disaster, as long as it keeps Labour shifting towards the far left.
The stupid, arrogant, cowards are those on the soft and centre left who know in their heart of hearts he's an appalling individual but think they can vaguely cower and it will all be ok. In the case of the former, it's a refusal to admit they acted dreadfully by hitching their wagons to Corbyn, and devalued any morals they claimed to have. In the case of the latter, it's a failure to stand up for what they know to be right, other than to murmur disgruntlement in the hope it al goes away.
Either way, they'll never sort it.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-no-deal-boris-johnson-dominic-grieve-collapse-government-election-a9039121.html
Easier said than done.....
Despite this vagueness they still couldn't attract people, I think left wing voters are more attracted by policy than vague words about aspiration, one of the big problems the Labour right has is they have had very little to actually say beyond I don't like it.
Arguably the one policy some of them have had is another referendum, although that has been pushed from the left as well so it isn't even theirs, the Labour right probably contains as many (if not more) against another referendum than the Labour left. Now it is pretty much party policy anyway to have a 2nd ref so it isn't much of a different policy position.
The main others things that come to mind are keeping trident there was a bit of debate about with the right strongly in support and there have been various complaints on the right about the tuition fees policy but maybe for tactical reasons they haven't pushed on that one too strongly....
Their main policy seems to be not being Corbyn (pro Trident is second), which would probably be more internally successful in other political parties.