Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
-
Have you taken your curtains down completely? All the better to spy on those around you?SandyRentool said:Morning all.
Another day, another bunch of dickheads:
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-hundreds-flout-lockdown-rules-to-attend-illegal-party-in-east-london-119977981 -
I thought this virus was meant to be harmless to people under 60 years old.Scott_xP said:0 -
I am not sure but I suspect that input from behavioural scientists and intelligence that the lockdown is fraying may have had something to do with the recent easing.SandyRentool said:Morning all.
Another day, another bunch of dickheads:
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-hundreds-flout-lockdown-rules-to-attend-illegal-party-in-east-london-11997798
0 -
Is Sturgeon correct? I thought the ONS was capturing all deaths which mention COVID on the death certificate?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8373613/amp/Nicola-Sturgeon-accuses-England-reporting-care-home-deaths.html?__twitter_impression=true0 -
The guys at the current bun must be smarting at the recent headline successes at the hitherto unmentionable Daily Star.Penddu2 said:Headline of the day - Burn in the USA.
The Sun.0 -
A by election would be easy, just make it 100% postal if the concern is all those people in the polling place.ydoethur said:Off topic (sorry Stuart!)
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.0 -
0
-
A good example of when not answering supplies the answer.Scott_xP said:0 -
Dangerous but less dangerous than driver/sales workers and truck drivers and a number of other everyday professionsPeter_the_Punter said:
This may be due to the fact that it is an effing dangerous job. When police in this country are called to the scene of a crime it rarely crosses the mind that the suspect will be armed. In the US, they would normally assume the suspect is.Alistair said:
Cops are never fired after Murdering someone in America. They are put on gardening leave and then let back in after an 'investigation'.not_on_fire said:
Nonsense, in most states anyone can be fired at any time for any reason (as long as it is not on a very short list of exceptions such as race or sex - being gay is notably absent)eek said:
The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.Theuniondivvie said:
Yeah, well sue me. Being charged with murder is a pretty big clue, and video of a knee on a neck for 9 minutes being in the public domain is what started this.Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Most surprised* that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.
*not surprised
https://www.ajc.com/business/employment/these-are-the-most-dangerous-jobs-america/x2MOTeEYCgkt2zYCLfqfJJ/0 -
He’s much more an intentional catalyst than a symptom.Sandpit said:
I do think of Trump as a symptom rather than the cause of the problems, but I'm really not sure how the longstanding issues get resolved.Mysticrose said:
America has been a powder keg for some time and it's wrong to put the blame wholly on Trump.Sandpit said:Wakes up hoping to read front pages on the astronauts, but instead it seems that the USA has decided to declare war on itself.
Not surprising that eventually it all kicked off to be honest, telling millions of young Americans to stay home for weeks on end was unlikely to end well, and one flash point has allowed every anarchist group in the country to cause trouble.
As John Green says, the American Dream is basically benefitting from someone else's misfortune.
I love Americans but right now the country is rotten to the core.
There's always been a fundamental distrust by most Americans of all the people in power, and the politicians clearly being in it only for themselves and their campaign contributions - a situation which compounds the most broken elements of society in the States.
So now we see a reaction to that, with several different organised groups of people turning protests into riots in cities across the country, against a background of a lockdown and the spark of yet another death in police custody. This will in the short term only breed a vicious cycle of harder policing and more riots, until eventually order can be restored. As others have said, it plays into Trump's hands.
But as always, identifying the problems is the easy bit. It's coming up with solutions that's much more difficult - especially when everyone's primary emotion is anger, but for many different and opposing reasons.
Solutions might include electing a president who does not employ racists in his administration, and does not intentionally stoke racial confrontation.0 -
He DID die from a pre-existing condition. And I think we all know what it was. No need for too much sleuthing.Theuniondivvie said:
Yeah, well sue me. Being charged with murder is a pretty big clue, and video of a knee on a neck for 9 minutes being in the public domain is what started this.Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Most surprised* that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.
*not surprised0 -
American cops have an amazing track record of killing unarmed black suspects but taking in armed white suspects peacefully.Peter_the_Punter said:
This may be due to the fact that it is an effing dangerous job. When police in this country are called to the scene of a crime it rarely crosses the mind that the suspect will be armed. In the US, they would normally assume the suspect is.Alistair said:
Cops are never fired after Murdering someone in America. They are put on gardening leave and then let back in after an 'investigation'.not_on_fire said:
Nonsense, in most states anyone can be fired at any time for any reason (as long as it is not on a very short list of exceptions such as race or sex - being gay is notably absent)eek said:
The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.Theuniondivvie said:
Yeah, well sue me. Being charged with murder is a pretty big clue, and video of a knee on a neck for 9 minutes being in the public domain is what started this.Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Most surprised* that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.
*not surprised0 -
She apologised and quit the front bench. Cummings didn’t even apologise. If he had done that story would have gone nowhereKentRising said:https://twitter.com/JimBabw19270992/status/1266881070387146753?s=19
Rosie Duffield latest.2 -
Icing sugar, ITYM. Most likely just covid-19, which is why I've backed Boris to resign in the next 18 months.Peter_the_Punter said:
The corollary of this is that SKS's masterly forensic PMQ technique might be overrated and that even Jeremy Corbyn could have tripped Boris up.1 -
Hell of a source you’re citing there BTW. Anonymous Tweeter, joined in January, 19 followers.KentRising said:https://twitter.com/JimBabw19270992/status/1266881070387146753?s=19
Rosie Duffield latest.0 -
Yeah, how shocking. If we can't bet on her, this is just distraction from Cummings being a cock.KentRising said:https://twitter.com/JimBabw19270992/status/1266881070387146753?s=19
Rosie Duffield latest.0 -
-
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.eek said:0 -
No he was definitely partisan and clearly driven in part by personal animus. He was also subject to very partisan attacks and defences. He did some good things as Speaker and he was certainly not in the pocket of government which is a good thing, but particularly toward the end its laughable to claim he was 'honest rather than partisan' - it was practically all out war between Speaker and government, which certainly wasnt just down to him but however praiseworthy his spine in a contest of total dicks he was a major part of the game not the umpire.malcolmg said:
Not enough brown nosing and tugging his forelock to Boris you mean, he was honest rather than being partisan. Having some principles and honesty shows he was not your average Tory and he has been shafted by Boris and his bunch of spineless cretins.squareroot2 said:
Bercow was supposed to.be a Tory.. but he wasn't really .. he showed his vindictiveness in the Commons time and time again supporting the Opposition against the Govt.malcolmg said:
Nasty vindictive Tories.squareroot2 said:
Excellent news especially about Bercow.. horrid little man both adjectively and literally. He and his wife deserve each otherCarlottaVance said:
.0 -
A hereditary condition, you mean?kinabalu said:
He DID die from a pre-existing condition. And I think we all know what it was. No need for too much sleuthing.Theuniondivvie said:
Yeah, well sue me. Being charged with murder is a pretty big clue, and video of a knee on a neck for 9 minutes being in the public domain is what started this.Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Most surprised* that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.
*not surprised0 -
No. Durham police have not given him a clean bill of health. They said that a prosecution would be disproportionate. Their statement made it very clear they felt, whatever the technicalities of the law, he had driven a coach and four (well, Range Rover) through government guidance and that his trip to Barnard Castle was a breach of the regulations.Mexicanpete said:
No, the moral dimension to the Duffield case make it a straight red like Ferguson.All authorities have given Cummings a clean bill of health. Likewise Jenrick.ydoethur said:
They could have made that decision over the phone. And then, when a new household was made, locked down in that.OldKingCole said:
Not sure how serious her offence actually is. There are surely going to be times when new households are going to be set up....... in fact at one of the very early Coronavirus pressers Dr Harries was asked; 'what about couples who are thinking of living together' ands replied that maybe they'd just have to make a decision.ydoethur said:Off topic (sorry Stuart!)
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
Which, surely, is what Duffield and her partner have.
I think there's a danger of over-reacting here.
I am afraid that however natural and human her impulses, it was a breach of the rules and her own exhortations to stay at home. She’s finished.
Edit - a mitigating factor is she has admitted the offence, apologised and made partial restitution by giving up her frontbench role. Cummings, by contrast, has blamed everybody but himself, clung to his job like a limpet and told a series of increasingly bizarre stories to try and exculpate himself. This does also indicate a high level of moral cowardice on his part - but we knew that already after his select committee appearance.
Duffield may of course face prosecution, but I think it unlikely because, as with Cummings, the immediate sanction would have been to tell her to go home.1 -
The Rosie Duffield story won’t be going anywhere regardless of the attempts to suggest it’s similar to the Cummings one .
She did not help make the rules , she resigned her shadow cabinet post and apologized .
0 -
Really? I never knew he was a teacher.Alistair said:
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.eek said:4 -
That answer does not say they are going too fast, it is very cautiously worded no doubt to avoid exactly that. If the relaxation goes fine that quote would not be able to be used as a sign he criticised the action and if it does not go fine it would.Scott_xP said:0 -
Well it wasnt straight away, but the histrionics demanding he get back to work (by implication) by making up a constitutional crisis if he was off work, may have forced his hand. It wasnt as amusing as the completely contradictory argument that he has no mandate for actions in response to covid (never mind governments must respond to the unforeseen) and must be replaced by, er, those with even less of a mandate.Alistair said:
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.eek said:1 -
What car does Cummings drive? Some on pb have said Range Rover, others Land Rover Discovery; the clip outside his gaff did not look like either imo.ydoethur said:
No. Durham police have not given him a clean bill of health. They said that a prosecution would be disproportionate. Their statement made it very clear they felt, whatever the technicalities of the law, he had driven a coach and four (well, Range Rover) through government guidance and that his trip to Barnard Castle was a breach of the regulations.Mexicanpete said:
No, the moral dimension to the Duffield case make it a straight red like Ferguson.All authorities have given Cummings a clean bill of health. Likewise Jenrick.ydoethur said:
They could have made that decision over the phone. And then, when a new household was made, locked down in that.OldKingCole said:
Not sure how serious her offence actually is. There are surely going to be times when new households are going to be set up....... in fact at one of the very early Coronavirus pressers Dr Harries was asked; 'what about couples who are thinking of living together' ands replied that maybe they'd just have to make a decision.ydoethur said:Off topic (sorry Stuart!)
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
Which, surely, is what Duffield and her partner have.
I think there's a danger of over-reacting here.
I am afraid that however natural and human her impulses, it was a breach of the rules and her own exhortations to stay at home. She’s finished.
Edit - a mitigating factor is she has admitted the offence, apologised and made partial restitution by giving up her frontbench role. Cummings, by contrast, has blamed everybody but himself, clung to his job like a limpet and told a series of increasingly bizarre stories to try and exculpate himself. This does also indicate a high level of moral cowardice on his part - but we knew that already after his select committee appearance.
Duffield may of course face prosecution, but I think it unlikely because, as with Cummings, the immediate sanction would have been to tell her to go home.0 -
I'm not sure I'd agree it's going nowhere. The atmosphere's febrile. She did something that was at best very stupid and at worst illegal. There will be a lot of anger and her constituents will probably give her hell.nico67 said:The Rosie Duffield story won’t be going anywhere regardless of the attempts to suggest it’s similar to the Cummings one .
She did not help make the rules , she resigned her shadow cabinet post and apologized .
However, the apology and resignation probably mitigate the wider damage. The admission will also help. Most people will probably think, 'well, yeah, maybe I would have done/did do something like that and I'm lucky I didn't get caught.' Finally, unlike Cummings she is quite popular. Who was it said of Cummings, 'he has no enemies, but all his friends hate him?'
And I agree with @DougSeal that if Cummings had come clean and apologised he might have ridden this storm out with limited damage. Saying, 'I was very anxious to be quarantined in a house with a nice garden and I wanted to treat my wife on her birthday' and Tory voters would have given him a pass because they would have understood. Not Labour voters locked in their tiny flats in Walsall or Mossside, but he doesn't care about them. It's the way thinks he can get away with such stupid lies that is destroying him and the government.
I would add, this is doubly reckless as there is a very real risk it will rebound on his son, who is being made to look like a human shield for his father's chronic arrogance and lack of judgement.0 -
An interesting list!DougSeal said:
Dangerous but less dangerous than driver/sales workers and truck drivers and a number of other everyday professionsPeter_the_Punter said:
This may be due to the fact that it is an effing dangerous job. When police in this country are called to the scene of a crime it rarely crosses the mind that the suspect will be armed. In the US, they would normally assume the suspect is.Alistair said:
Cops are never fired after Murdering someone in America. They are put on gardening leave and then let back in after an 'investigation'.not_on_fire said:
Nonsense, in most states anyone can be fired at any time for any reason (as long as it is not on a very short list of exceptions such as race or sex - being gay is notably absent)eek said:
The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.Theuniondivvie said:
Yeah, well sue me. Being charged with murder is a pretty big clue, and video of a knee on a neck for 9 minutes being in the public domain is what started this.Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Most surprised* that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.
*not surprised
https://www.ajc.com/business/employment/these-are-the-most-dangerous-jobs-america/x2MOTeEYCgkt2zYCLfqfJJ/
Most of those jobs are inherently dangerous though. Policing in the USA would be a lot less dangerous if the gun laws were sensible.
What would a similar list for the UK look like? I doubt policing would feature in the top fifty.1 -
Discovery sport.DecrepiterJohnL said:What car does Cummings drive? Some on pb have said Range Rover, others Land Rover Discovery; the clip outside his gaff did not look like either imo.
Freelander as was1 -
To be honest, it doesn't make a lot of difference what he drives. The point is he shouldn't have been fecking driving it.DecrepiterJohnL said:
What car does Cummings drive? Some on pb have said Range Rover, others Land Rover Discovery; the clip outside his gaff did not look like either imo.ydoethur said:
No. Durham police have not given him a clean bill of health. They said that a prosecution would be disproportionate. Their statement made it very clear they felt, whatever the technicalities of the law, he had driven a coach and four (well, Range Rover) through government guidance and that his trip to Barnard Castle was a breach of the regulations.Mexicanpete said:
No, the moral dimension to the Duffield case make it a straight red like Ferguson.All authorities have given Cummings a clean bill of health. Likewise Jenrick.ydoethur said:
They could have made that decision over the phone. And then, when a new household was made, locked down in that.OldKingCole said:
Not sure how serious her offence actually is. There are surely going to be times when new households are going to be set up....... in fact at one of the very early Coronavirus pressers Dr Harries was asked; 'what about couples who are thinking of living together' ands replied that maybe they'd just have to make a decision.ydoethur said:Off topic (sorry Stuart!)
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
Which, surely, is what Duffield and her partner have.
I think there's a danger of over-reacting here.
I am afraid that however natural and human her impulses, it was a breach of the rules and her own exhortations to stay at home. She’s finished.
Edit - a mitigating factor is she has admitted the offence, apologised and made partial restitution by giving up her frontbench role. Cummings, by contrast, has blamed everybody but himself, clung to his job like a limpet and told a series of increasingly bizarre stories to try and exculpate himself. This does also indicate a high level of moral cowardice on his part - but we knew that already after his select committee appearance.
Duffield may of course face prosecution, but I think it unlikely because, as with Cummings, the immediate sanction would have been to tell her to go home.1 -
-
Morning all, beautiful one today. Saw some family members from another household in their garden yesterday at social distance. Brilliant day.0
-
The optics of someone getting Covid and then having to convalesce for 6 months would obviously be bad for a government champing at the bit to. Get the economy moving again.kle4 said:
Well it wasnt straight away, but the histrionics demanding he get back to work (by implication) by making up a constitutional crisis if he was off work, may have forced his hand. It wasnt as amusing as the completely contradictory argument that he has no mandate for actions in response to covid (never mind governments must respond to the unforeseen) and must be replaced by, er, those with even less of a mandate.Alistair said:
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.eek said:
But having a shambling husk of a human running things is a lot, lot worse.
0 -
The will of 55% of Scottish voters in 2014 in a 'once in a generation' referendum was to stay in the UKStuartDickson said:
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.HYUFD said:
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.StuartDickson said:
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.Philip_Thompson said:
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.StuartDickson said:
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?HYUFD said:
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priorityStuartDickson said:
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?HYUFD said:
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.StuartDickson said:
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?HYUFD said:
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.StuartDickson said:
Huh?HYUFD said:
Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%StuartDickson said:Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.
Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
That Opinium gives seat distribution of:
SNP 52 seats (+4)
SCon 6 seats (nc)
SLab 1 seat (nc)
SLD 0 seats (-4)
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.0 -
My parents live in her constituency, I grew up there and now live literally half a mile outside it. I went to the same grammar school her sons were “revealed” to be at by Guido. The folks commented on it when we spoke this morning but also gave her credit for recognising she did something wrong. It will get as much traction as Guido’s “revelation” that her kids were at the boys’ Langton.ydoethur said:
I'm not sure I'd agree it's going nowhere. The atmosphere's febrile. She did something that was at best very stupid and at worst illegal. There will be a lot of anger and her constituents will probably give her hell.nico67 said:The Rosie Duffield story won’t be going anywhere regardless of the attempts to suggest it’s similar to the Cummings one .
She did not help make the rules , she resigned her shadow cabinet post and apologized .
However, the apology and resignation probably mitigate the wider damage. The admission will also help. Most people will probably think, 'well, yeah, maybe I would have done/did do something like that and I'm lucky I didn't get caught.' Finally, unlike Cummings she is quite popular. Who was it said of Cummings, 'he has no enemies, but all his friends hate him?'
And I agree with @DougSeal that if Cummings had come clean and apologised he might have ridden this storm out with limited damage. Saying, 'I was very anxious to be quarantined in a house with a nice garden and I wanted to treat my wife on her birthday' and Tory voters would have given him a pass because they would have understood. Not Labour voters locked in their tiny flats in Walsall or Mossside, but he doesn't care about them. It's the way thinks he can get away with such stupid lies that is destroying him and the government.
I would add, this is doubly reckless as there is a very real risk it will rebound on his son, who is being made to look like a human shield for his father's chronic arrogance and lack of judgement.0 -
-
The government/Boris brought that on themselves by pre tending everything was fine from the moment Boris was diagnosed with Covid.kle4 said:
Well it wasnt straight away, but the histrionics demanding he get back to work (by implication) by making up a constitutional crisis if he was off work, may have forced his hand. It wasnt as amusing as the completely contradictory argument that he has no mandate for actions in response to covid (never mind governments must respond to the unforeseen) and must be replaced by, er, those with even less of a mandate.Alistair said:
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.eek said:
The farce of saying he was in full control of his brief even as he was being wheeled into ICU has created this situation where Boris had to be back at work ASAP otherwise they would have to admit they were lying/wrong.0 -
I agree - a glance at the US shows the dangers. As with social media, people choose to follow the channel that reflects their beliefs. After a while, people start to believe fake news because they hear it repeatedly from "their" channel. Take the Guardian - I like it, it's my main source of news. But their virus coverage is around 70% selected to be hostile to the Government. When the police said Cumming's trip to Durham was OK, the one to Barnard Castle maybe not, the Guardian led with (and hyped up) the latter bit. As I recall, the Telegraph (which I routinely glance at with a starting point of contempt) did the opposite. I wish they'd all make an effort at balance, as IMO the BBC does.not_on_fire said:
Most of those who complain about TV news in this country are in the 10% most extreme left or right. Their complaints are usually that the news contradicts their partisan worldview which they put down to “bias” rather than consider that what they believe may be wrong.
A quick glance at Twitter shows both extreme left and right attacking the BBC, for example. They can’t both be right.
I find the attitude of “people are angry that the news doesn’t confirm their bullsh*t, so let’s start a news channel to make up news to confirm it” profoundly disturbing.
That said, it's not entirely true that both extremes can't both be right. The broadcast media broadly reflect a centrist liberal perspective, with a slight bias to criticising the government of the day. They struggled to represent Corbyn fairly IMO, and I'm not sure they represented the Leave campaign fairly either. Anyone who is very different from the centrist position is seen as odd and views of people who don't like them are given more prominence than would be given to routine political argy-bargy.2 -
This is the point of maximum pressure now, with a really fine line between another virus peak and another million unemployed.kle4 said:
That answer does not say they are going too fast, it is very cautiously worded no doubt to avoid exactly that. If the relaxation goes fine that quote would not be able to be used as a sign he criticised the action and if it does not go fine it would.Scott_xP said:
How everyone collectively behaves in the next few weeks determines the outcome for the country, I’m not sure anyone really wants to be in the room making decisions at the moment, but ultimately it’s down to the PM and government to thread the needle. It’s not going to be easy at all.0 -
Since GE19 though the Tories voteshare is down just 1%, almost all the movement is Remainers from LD to LabourMysticrose said:Crikey just saw that Opinium poll. We are nearly at crossover. I thought it might take 3 months but this is pretty seismic.
In a few short weeks the Conservatives have gone from 20% leads to almost neck-and-neck.0 -
Just calling it as it is..StuartDickson said:
“Powerless Scots” = admission that British Nationalists disrespect democracy and fundamental civil rightssquareroot2 said:
Wonderful.to see the ranting of the powerless Scots. There is no majority for Independence. The Scots have already spoken. This is not Ireland where you keep voting till the people vote thr way the local Scits Govt wants..StuartDickson said:
Interesting pseudo-religious projection there. Are you an Orange Lodge nutter?squareroot2 said:
Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....StuartDickson said:
We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.squareroot2 said:
You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .StuartDickson said:
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.HYUFD said:
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.StuartDickson said:
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.Philip_Thompson said:
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.StuartDickson said:
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?HYUFD said:
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priorityStuartDickson said:
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?HYUFD said:
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.StuartDickson said:
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?HYUFD said:
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.StuartDickson said:
Huh?HYUFD said:
Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%StuartDickson said:Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.
Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
That Opinium gives seat distribution of:
SNP 52 seats (+4)
SCon 6 seats (nc)
SLab 1 seat (nc)
SLD 0 seats (-4)
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69
Brit Nat MSPs = 61
Your British Nationalism fails.
What is “bullshit”? That pro-IndyRef2 MSPs outnumber BritNat MSPs is a simple statement of fact.
You seem very sure that Scotland will lose again next time round. Why are you then so scared of letting the Scots decide for themselves?
“There is no majority for independence”. How do you know that?
“The Scots have already spoken”. Yes they have, and they voted for the two pro-IndyRef2 parties.
Your Irish gobbledygook indicates that I was right: you are an Orange Lodge nutter.
0 -
iirc people were trying to work out from mpg and fuel tank capacity if he needed to refuel somewhere. But now it is just idle curiosity about the different models.ydoethur said:
To be honest, it doesn't make a lot of difference what he drives. The point is he shouldn't have been fecking driving it.DecrepiterJohnL said:
What car does Cummings drive? Some on pb have said Range Rover, others Land Rover Discovery; the clip outside his gaff did not look like either imo.ydoethur said:
No. Durham police have not given him a clean bill of health. They said that a prosecution would be disproportionate. Their statement made it very clear they felt, whatever the technicalities of the law, he had driven a coach and four (well, Range Rover) through government guidance and that his trip to Barnard Castle was a breach of the regulations.Mexicanpete said:
No, the moral dimension to the Duffield case make it a straight red like Ferguson.All authorities have given Cummings a clean bill of health. Likewise Jenrick.ydoethur said:
They could have made that decision over the phone. And then, when a new household was made, locked down in that.OldKingCole said:
Not sure how serious her offence actually is. There are surely going to be times when new households are going to be set up....... in fact at one of the very early Coronavirus pressers Dr Harries was asked; 'what about couples who are thinking of living together' ands replied that maybe they'd just have to make a decision.ydoethur said:Off topic (sorry Stuart!)
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
Which, surely, is what Duffield and her partner have.
I think there's a danger of over-reacting here.
I am afraid that however natural and human her impulses, it was a breach of the rules and her own exhortations to stay at home. She’s finished.
Edit - a mitigating factor is she has admitted the offence, apologised and made partial restitution by giving up her frontbench role. Cummings, by contrast, has blamed everybody but himself, clung to his job like a limpet and told a series of increasingly bizarre stories to try and exculpate himself. This does also indicate a high level of moral cowardice on his part - but we knew that already after his select committee appearance.
Duffield may of course face prosecution, but I think it unlikely because, as with Cummings, the immediate sanction would have been to tell her to go home.0 -
Whatever happened to "we are led by the science?" It's crystal clear the health experts do not want us to ease lockdown. The government are pressing on regardless. The plan pre-Cummings was to hide behind SAGE if things went wrong. What's the plan now when things go wrong, say what about Rosie Duffield?
As for Americans, what the fuck is wrong with them?0 -
Kudos for restrained understatement. After 4 years Trump is more cause than mere symptom. Malevolent catalyst is accurate and about the kindest possible tag.Nigelb said:
He’s much more an intentional catalyst than a symptom.Sandpit said:
I do think of Trump as a symptom rather than the cause of the problems, but I'm really not sure how the longstanding issues get resolved.Mysticrose said:
America has been a powder keg for some time and it's wrong to put the blame wholly on Trump.Sandpit said:Wakes up hoping to read front pages on the astronauts, but instead it seems that the USA has decided to declare war on itself.
Not surprising that eventually it all kicked off to be honest, telling millions of young Americans to stay home for weeks on end was unlikely to end well, and one flash point has allowed every anarchist group in the country to cause trouble.
As John Green says, the American Dream is basically benefitting from someone else's misfortune.
I love Americans but right now the country is rotten to the core.
There's always been a fundamental distrust by most Americans of all the people in power, and the politicians clearly being in it only for themselves and their campaign contributions - a situation which compounds the most broken elements of society in the States.
So now we see a reaction to that, with several different organised groups of people turning protests into riots in cities across the country, against a background of a lockdown and the spark of yet another death in police custody. This will in the short term only breed a vicious cycle of harder policing and more riots, until eventually order can be restored. As others have said, it plays into Trump's hands.
But as always, identifying the problems is the easy bit. It's coming up with solutions that's much more difficult - especially when everyone's primary emotion is anger, but for many different and opposing reasons.
Solutions might include electing a president who does not employ racists in his administration, and does not intentionally stoke racial confrontation.
Without a climate of hate and division in America, Donald Trump dies as a political force and he knows this. Therefore his mission at all times is to maximize hate and division. If it is not there, he will seek to create it. Where already present, he will seek to amplify and spread it far and wide.
His absence is thus the sine qua non for addressing the many social problems the country has. It is pointless to even think about what the solutions might be until he has been removed from office.
#november0 -
Cummings happenedRochdalePioneers said:Whatever happened to "we are led by the science?"
0 -
A couple of observations regarding Rosie Duffield, which I have just found out about.
She didn't really 'do the right thing' - she did the only thing possible given the stance taken by her party and its leader. If she hadn't resigned he would have sacked her - not a difficult choice to make then.
In resigning from her front bench post, she has dented her income, but not lost her job. The equivalent to what is expected of Cummings is to quit the Commons and make a career elsewhere.0 -
Alistair said:
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.eek said:
I suspect Johnson's problems are partly mental as he knows that right now things are only going to get worse. Much worse.
The Sunday Times report shows how the economy is in an awful state.
It looks like the economic rebound is far below what the government expected, though why anybody would expect a rebound with the current rules and guidelines in place is beyond me. The disincentives are pretty big.
There must be panic at the treasury as the bills soar into the stratosphere and people show few signs of going back to work.
The horrible dilemma that Sunak and Johnson have got themselves in is that if they do what is takes to get Britain going by loosening lockdown more and earlier, the scientists will scream louder than they already are. Scientists they claimed they were following.
PLus, furlough means that the voters are on the scientists' side and not theirs. Why would anybody want furlough to end?
0 -
I'm glad to see the thoughtful header on:ydoethur said:Off topic (sorry Stuart!)
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
(1) One of the Cummings "witnesses" admits he made up seeing him in Durham the second time
(2) One of the witnesses is a hypocrite who drove 235 miles each way to collect his daughter from her boyfriend's house
(3) Hillary Armstrong seems to have been working behind the scenes
(4) The original Durham police story that sparked the whole thing was materially incorrect0 -
“Mr Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Kettle”squareroot2 said:0 -
Incidentally Stuart... it was your mate Tony Blair who gave you powers such as they are....squareroot2 said:
Just calling it as it is..StuartDickson said:
“Powerless Scots” = admission that British Nationalists disrespect democracy and fundamental civil rightssquareroot2 said:
Wonderful.to see the ranting of the powerless Scots. There is no majority for Independence. The Scots have already spoken. This is not Ireland where you keep voting till the people vote thr way the local Scits Govt wants..StuartDickson said:
Interesting pseudo-religious projection there. Are you an Orange Lodge nutter?squareroot2 said:
Bullshit.. it will.be another vote.. if it ever happens .... and another failure. The Scots know that the Sainted Nicola will.never lead them to the promised Land....StuartDickson said:
We have proof from the ballot box that Scots voted for the two parties who propose a fresh independence referendum.squareroot2 said:
You have no proof that the Scots want to to leave the Union...your comment fails .StuartDickson said:
So, you have no interest in Scottish society, culture or national well-being. Therefore, one suspects that your strong desire to keep Scotland in the Union, against the will of the Scottish people, is more to do with your interest in English society, culture and national well-being.HYUFD said:
I accept there is a Nationalist majority now at Holyrood of SNP and Greens.StuartDickson said:
It was HY who claimed we are heading for a “Unionist majority” next year. But if, as you say, Labour and Tory cannot work together, then the concept of “Unionist majority” is pretty meaningless.Philip_Thompson said:
Unionist is not a party. Labour and Tory are not interchangeable.StuartDickson said:
But you just said that you would get a Unionist majority, which by definition means most seats. Why them would you Unionists not use your majority to form a government?HYUFD said:
We do if we win most seats, if not then preserving the Union is the priorityStuartDickson said:
So, you are going to use your “Unionist majority” to install a pro-Scotland FM. What is the point in voting Unionist when you have no intention of governing?HYUFD said:
No, Sturgeon would stay FM just with a Unionist majority blocking indyref2, as was the case with FM Salmond from 2007 to 2011.StuartDickson said:
So, the Conservatives are going to provide confidence and supply to FM Leonard? That’s available at the astonishingly good price of 20/1. How much cash have you invested HY?HYUFD said:
Ruth Davidson never got the Tories to 30% and the figures would actually see the Tories up to 7 MPs in Scotland and regaining Gordon from the SNP.StuartDickson said:
Huh?HYUFD said:
Tories up to 30% in Scotland, which would be their highest voteshare there since 1979. SNP back under 50%StuartDickson said:Very good SCon and SLab figures in that Opinium, but I cannot recall a poll which has ever returned zero Scottish Liberal Democrat voters.
Looks like anything Ruth can do Jackson can do even better
That Opinium gives seat distribution of:
SNP 52 seats (+4)
SCon 6 seats (nc)
SLab 1 seat (nc)
SLD 0 seats (-4)
... which is about half what Ruth Davidson managed.
If repeated next year it would see a Unionist majority at Holyrood
Of course though on this poll Carlaw would have more MPs and likely MSPs than Leonard too
HY loves to add together SLab+SCon+SLD+BrexitP+UKIP+OrangeLodge+BNP+otherbampots
... but funnily enough, he always forgets to add Scottish Greens to the Yes side of the equation.
However if SCon and SLab and SLDs have a majority combined next year there will be a Unionist majority at Holyrood for the first time since 2011.
A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2.
I am English, Scottish domestic policy does not interest me and it does not bother me if Sturgeon is First Minister.
However I am also British and a Unionist and keeping Scotland in the UK and avoiding a Nationalist majority at Holyrood is important to me
“A Unionist majority is there solely to block indyref2” and a Unionist minority is there solely to block indyref2.
With Tories it is always Heads England Wins, Tails Scotland Loses.
Pro-Scotland MSPs = 69
Brit Nat MSPs = 61
Your British Nationalism fails.
What is “bullshit”? That pro-IndyRef2 MSPs outnumber BritNat MSPs is a simple statement of fact.
You seem very sure that Scotland will lose again next time round. Why are you then so scared of letting the Scots decide for themselves?
“There is no majority for independence”. How do you know that?
“The Scots have already spoken”. Yes they have, and they voted for the two pro-IndyRef2 parties.
Your Irish gobbledygook indicates that I was right: you are an Orange Lodge nutter.0 -
Reality happened. Just look at the Sunday Times report on the economy.Scott_xP said:
Cummings happenedRochdalePioneers said:Whatever happened to "we are led by the science?"
1 -
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?0 -
Let’s believe all these details just as you state them. Dominic Cummings is still an arrogant oaf who believes the laws and guidelines that were clearly laid out didn’t apply to him, and the Prime Minister has decided to back him in that judgement.Charles said:
I'm glad to see the thoughtful header on:ydoethur said:Off topic (sorry Stuart!)
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
(1) One of the Cummings "witnesses" admits he made up seeing him in Durham the second time
(2) One of the witnesses is a hypocrite who drove 235 miles each way to collect his daughter from her boyfriend's house
(3) Hillary Armstrong seems to have been working behind the scenes
(4) The original Durham police story that sparked the whole thing was materially incorrect0 -
Cummings does not sit in the Commons - he is a consultant.Luckyguy1983 said:In resigning from her front bench post, she has dented her income, but not lost her job. The equivalent to what is expected of Cummings is to quit the Commons and make a career elsewhere.
Any consultant of any experience in any contract knows that the job can end at any time and with little or no notice.0 -
The almost total distrust of authority and gun culture are both totally ingrained in US society, and those in charge of keeping order have a bloody difficult job to do on a daily basis. Occasionally they screw up, no-one goes to work in the morning hoping someone dies on their watch.Peter_the_Punter said:
An interesting list!DougSeal said:
Dangerous but less dangerous than driver/sales workers and truck drivers and a number of other everyday professionsPeter_the_Punter said:
This may be due to the fact that it is an effing dangerous job. When police in this country are called to the scene of a crime it rarely crosses the mind that the suspect will be armed. In the US, they would normally assume the suspect is.Alistair said:
Cops are never fired after Murdering someone in America. They are put on gardening leave and then let back in after an 'investigation'.not_on_fire said:
Nonsense, in most states anyone can be fired at any time for any reason (as long as it is not on a very short list of exceptions such as race or sex - being gay is notably absent)eek said:
The police department fired all 4 officers immediately, and you don't do that in the States unless you have a decent reason for doing so.Theuniondivvie said:
Yeah, well sue me. Being charged with murder is a pretty big clue, and video of a knee on a neck for 9 minutes being in the public domain is what started this.Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Most surprised* that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.
*not surprised
https://www.ajc.com/business/employment/these-are-the-most-dangerous-jobs-america/x2MOTeEYCgkt2zYCLfqfJJ/
Most of those jobs are inherently dangerous though. Policing in the USA would be a lot less dangerous if the gun laws were sensible.
What would a similar list for the UK look like? I doubt policing would feature in the top fifty.
UK has a very different culture, and as a result (to our great credit as a nation) one of very few police forces that are not routinely armed with guns. Deaths in active service are only a handful per year and are always national headline news, which is astonishingly low for the population.0 -
Well if you don’t qualify for any help, like me, and your earnings are down about 70%, the reasons are pretty obvious.contrarian said:Alistair said:
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.eek said:
I suspect Johnson's problems are partly mental as he knows that right now things are only going to get worse. Much worse.
The Sunday Times report shows how the economy is in an awful state.
It looks like the economic rebound is far below what the government expected, though why anybody would expect a rebound with the current rules and guidelines in place is beyond me. The disincentives are pretty big.
There must be panic at the treasury as the bills soar into the stratosphere and people show few signs of going back to work.
The horrible dilemma that Sunak and Johnson have got themselves in is that if they do what is takes to get Britain going by loosening lockdown more and earlier, the scientists will scream louder than they already are. Scientists they claimed they were following.
PLus, furlough means that the voters are on the scientists' side and not theirs. Why would anybody want furlough to end?
Plus anyone with a brain in their head is going to worry about whether there is going to be a job to go back to, a message that is going to be reinforced by almost daily large scale redundancies from here on.
As usual, it is only the public sector that is divorced from reality.
3 -
And the government has spent the last week ripping up all its previous public health strategy to keep him in his job.AlastairMeeks said:
Let’s believe all these details just as you state them. Dominic Cummings is still an arrogant oaf who believes the laws and guidelines that were clearly laid out didn’t apply to him, and the Prime Minister has decided to back him in that judgement.Charles said:
I'm glad to see the thoughtful header on:ydoethur said:Off topic (sorry Stuart!)
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
(1) One of the Cummings "witnesses" admits he made up seeing him in Durham the second time
(2) One of the witnesses is a hypocrite who drove 235 miles each way to collect his daughter from her boyfriend's house
(3) Hillary Armstrong seems to have been working behind the scenes
(4) The original Durham police story that sparked the whole thing was materially incorrect0 -
a public sector that Johnson and Sunak in some cases have praised to the skies.DavidL said:
Well if you don’t qualify for any help, like me, and your earnings are down about 70%, the reasons are pretty obvious.contrarian said:Alistair said:
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.eek said:
I suspect Johnson's problems are partly mental as he knows that right now things are only going to get worse. Much worse.
The Sunday Times report shows how the economy is in an awful state.
It looks like the economic rebound is far below what the government expected, though why anybody would expect a rebound with the current rules and guidelines in place is beyond me. The disincentives are pretty big.
There must be panic at the treasury as the bills soar into the stratosphere and people show few signs of going back to work.
The horrible dilemma that Sunak and Johnson have got themselves in is that if they do what is takes to get Britain going by loosening lockdown more and earlier, the scientists will scream louder than they already are. Scientists they claimed they were following.
PLus, furlough means that the voters are on the scientists' side and not theirs. Why would anybody want furlough to end?
Plus anyone with a brain in their head is going to worry about whether there is going to be a job to go back to, a message that is going to be reinforced by almost daily large scale redundancies from here on.
As usual, it is only the public sector that is divorced from reality.0 -
Rubbish. Reality (and economic consequences in particular) happened.Scott_xP said:
Cummings happenedRochdalePioneers said:Whatever happened to "we are led by the science?"
0 -
None of this is relevant to the direct “testimony” we have from Cummings himself which revealed him to have flouted both the spirit and the actuality of the guidance and regulations.Charles said:
I'm glad to see the thoughtful header on:ydoethur said:Off topic (sorry Stuart!)
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
(1) One of the Cummings "witnesses" admits he made up seeing him in Durham the second time
(2) One of the witnesses is a hypocrite who drove 235 miles each way to collect his daughter from her boyfriend's house
(3) Hillary Armstrong seems to have been working behind the scenes
(4) The original Durham police story that sparked the whole thing was materially incorrect
While stoutly maintaining his innocence.
I am incredibly bored with the story, but anyone defending Cummings just outs themself as a partisan bullshit-artist.1 -
Is that a long-winded way of calling the media "pot stirrers"?NickPalmer said:
I agree - a glance at the US shows the dangers. As with social media, people choose to follow the channel that reflects their beliefs. After a while, people start to believe fake news because they hear it repeatedly from "their" channel. Take the Guardian - I like it, it's my main source of news. But their virus coverage is around 70% selected to be hostile to the Government. When the police said Cumming's trip to Durham was OK, the one to Barnard Castle maybe not, the Guardian led with (and hyped up) the latter bit. As I recall, the Telegraph (which I routinely glance at with a starting point of contempt) did the opposite. I wish they'd all make an effort at balance, as IMO the BBC does.not_on_fire said:
Most of those who complain about TV news in this country are in the 10% most extreme left or right. Their complaints are usually that the news contradicts their partisan worldview which they put down to “bias” rather than consider that what they believe may be wrong.
A quick glance at Twitter shows both extreme left and right attacking the BBC, for example. They can’t both be right.
I find the attitude of “people are angry that the news doesn’t confirm their bullsh*t, so let’s start a news channel to make up news to confirm it” profoundly disturbing.
That said, it's not entirely true that both extremes can't both be right. The broadcast media broadly reflect a centrist liberal perspective, with a slight bias to criticising the government of the day. They struggled to represent Corbyn fairly IMO, and I'm not sure they represented the Leave campaign fairly either. Anyone who is very different from the centrist position is seen as odd and views of people who don't like them are given more prominence than would be given to routine political argy-bargy.
0 -
I do think that the media has lost its way.not_on_fire said:
Most of those who complain about TV news in this country are in the 10% most extreme left or right. Their complaints are usually that the news contradicts their partisan worldview which they put down to “bias” rather than consider that what they believe may be wrong.Socky said:
The UK at the moment seems to have a partisan news echo-chamber (singular), I don't see how that is any better.Sandpit said:It's a really difficult one, but IMO it's important to avoid going down the American route of partisan news echo-chambers that inevitably ends with a culture war (if not getting close to an actual war, looking at the pictures this morning).
The lack of alternative views means that the TV news programmes have no real competition. They can all lead with the partisan irrelevant story of the day, and the viewers just have to take it.Sandpit said:Among all the polling this weekend, it might have been good to ask unprompted what people see as the biggest issues in their lives right now - and comparing with what the TV news have been thinking are the biggest issues.
A quick glance at Twitter shows both extreme left and right attacking the BBC, for example. They can’t both be right.
I find the attitude of “people are angry that the news doesn’t confirm their bullsh*t, so let’s start a news channel to make up news to confirm it” profoundly disturbing.
I mentioned use of the term "murdered" for George Floyd today - presupposing the police officer's guilt. The Maitlis introduction is another one - conflating opinion with reporting.
The BBC has a more specific challenge with a liberal bias (not party political but mindset) which shows up mainly in their story selection.
It's better than MSNBC/CNN/Fox, but it's by no means good.1 -
1
-
The reports in today’s Times tell us what we already knew: that the government is run by Cummings and that Boris is no longer mentally or psychologically up to the job. If he ever was.
If Raab did punch Cummings, he goes up in my estimation, and actually I do rate him as Foreign Secretary. I still don’t understand how the author of “Assault on Liberty” ended up advocating the prorogation of Parliament, though.1 -
Given the government is unable to tell us the current Covid alert level on its own scale, introduced by the Prime Minister just three weeks ago and the main political development in the interim was Dominic Cummings’ grand tour, you have to suspect that was the reason it has effectively been junked.DavidL said:
Rubbish. Reality (and economic consequences in particular) happened.Scott_xP said:
Cummings happenedRochdalePioneers said:Whatever happened to "we are led by the science?"
1 -
The Maitlis defence was that the opening was setting up the questions to be examined in the programme. Biased in isolation but not in context.Charles said:
I do think that the media has lost its way.not_on_fire said:
Most of those who complain about TV news in this country are in the 10% most extreme left or right. Their complaints are usually that the news contradicts their partisan worldview which they put down to “bias” rather than consider that what they believe may be wrong.Socky said:
The UK at the moment seems to have a partisan news echo-chamber (singular), I don't see how that is any better.Sandpit said:It's a really difficult one, but IMO it's important to avoid going down the American route of partisan news echo-chambers that inevitably ends with a culture war (if not getting close to an actual war, looking at the pictures this morning).
The lack of alternative views means that the TV news programmes have no real competition. They can all lead with the partisan irrelevant story of the day, and the viewers just have to take it.Sandpit said:Among all the polling this weekend, it might have been good to ask unprompted what people see as the biggest issues in their lives right now - and comparing with what the TV news have been thinking are the biggest issues.
A quick glance at Twitter shows both extreme left and right attacking the BBC, for example. They can’t both be right.
I find the attitude of “people are angry that the news doesn’t confirm their bullsh*t, so let’s start a news channel to make up news to confirm it” profoundly disturbing.
I mentioned use of the term "murdered" for George Floyd today - presupposing the police officer's guilt. The Maitlis introduction is another one - conflating opinion with reporting.
The BBC has a more specific challenge with a liberal bias (not party political but mindset) which shows up mainly in their story selection.
It's better than MSNBC/CNN/Fox, but it's by no means good.
On the BBC's so-called institutional bias, it is remarkable that CCHQ keeps recruiting from that tainted pool.0 -
You want to watch the video and tell me he wasn't murdered?Charles said:
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?0 -
Yes. Cradle to (early) grave.IshmaelZ said:
A hereditary condition, you mean?kinabalu said:
He DID die from a pre-existing condition. And I think we all know what it was. No need for too much sleuthing.Theuniondivvie said:
Yeah, well sue me. Being charged with murder is a pretty big clue, and video of a knee on a neck for 9 minutes being in the public domain is what started this.Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Most surprised* that you'd be the first PB poster to start with the pre-existing condition bullshit.
*not surprised0 -
Would you care to revisit your ratings for government performance so far?AlastairMeeks said:
Given the government is unable to tell us the current Covid alert level on its own scale, introduced by the Prime Minister just three weeks ago and the main political development in the interim was Dominic Cummings’ grand tour, you have to suspect that was the reason it has effectively been junked.DavidL said:
Rubbish. Reality (and economic consequences in particular) happened.Scott_xP said:
Cummings happenedRochdalePioneers said:Whatever happened to "we are led by the science?"
I seem to recall you were charitable about their comms strategy earlier in the pandemic.0 -
US laws on contempt of court, which must apply here, are very different from British laws. That said, I don’t care for the BBC using unnecessarily emotive words like murder without the sanction of a court verdict.Alistair said:
You want to watch the video and tell me he wasn't murdered?Charles said:
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?1 -
The comms strategy was good up to the point when the government decided to unlockdown. Since then it has been a ski jump deterioration. They have no clue what they want to say now or how they propose to say it. Much of this is Cummings-related.Gardenwalker said:
Would you care to revisit your ratings for government performance so far?AlastairMeeks said:
Given the government is unable to tell us the current Covid alert level on its own scale, introduced by the Prime Minister just three weeks ago and the main political development in the interim was Dominic Cummings’ grand tour, you have to suspect that was the reason it has effectively been junked.DavidL said:
Rubbish. Reality (and economic consequences in particular) happened.Scott_xP said:
Cummings happenedRochdalePioneers said:Whatever happened to "we are led by the science?"
I seem to recall you were charitable about their comms strategy earlier in the pandemic.0 -
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.Charles said:
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.0 -
-
Depends on the State. I read he has been charged with manslaughter so I guess it is possible in MinnesotaBeibheirli_C said:
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.Charles said:
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.0 -
They wouldn’t have used that phraseology to describe such an incident in the UK, precisely because they know it would be a contempt of court. They’d have said the usual “Person X has been charged with murder over the death of person Y, who died in circumstance Z, and he will appear in court tomorrow”.AlastairMeeks said:
US laws on contempt of court, which must apply here, are very different from British laws. That said, I don’t care for the BBC using unnecessarily emotive words like murder without the sanction of a court verdict.Alistair said:
You want to watch the video and tell me he wasn't murdered?Charles said:
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?0 -
Ha - you'll never see that in a million years.Charles said:
I'm glad to see the thoughtful header on:ydoethur said:Off topic (sorry Stuart!)
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
(1) One of the Cummings "witnesses" admits he made up seeing him in Durham the second time
(2) One of the witnesses is a hypocrite who drove 235 miles each way to collect his daughter from her boyfriend's house
(3) Hillary Armstrong seems to have been working behind the scenes
(4) The original Durham police story that sparked the whole thing was materially incorrect
Nor will there ever be a national witch-hunt for Duffield's career to be permanently destroyed, because she's a Labour MP, you see, and therefore good by definition...0 -
Libertarians do not like parliament. They would be anarchists if only they had the courage of their convictionsGardenwalker said:The reports in today’s Times tell us what we already knew: that the government is run by Cummings and that Boris is no longer mentally or psychologically up to the job. If he ever was.
If Raab did punch Cummings, he goes up in my estimation, and actually I do rate him as Foreign Secretary. I still don’t understand how the author of “Assault on Liberty” ended up advocating the prorogation of Parliament, though. 0 -
Quick soneone better tell Mitt not to be using the murder word
https://twitter.com/MittRomney/status/1266911462192287745?s=190 -
The BBC doesn’t have to follow British laws when they don’t apply. They should still maintain their professional standards.Sandpit said:
They wouldn’t have used that phraseology to describe such an incident in the UK, precisely because they know it would be a contempt of court. They’d have said the usual “Person X has been charged with murder over the death of person Y, who died in circumstance Z, and he will appear in court tomorrow”.AlastairMeeks said:
US laws on contempt of court, which must apply here, are very different from British laws. That said, I don’t care for the BBC using unnecessarily emotive words like murder without the sanction of a court verdict.Alistair said:
You want to watch the video and tell me he wasn't murdered?Charles said:
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?0 -
John Edmunds is the guy to listen to. When you cut through all the bullshit, he's the SAGE member I trust.RochdalePioneers said:Whatever happened to "we are led by the science?" It's crystal clear the health experts do not want us to ease lockdown. The government are pressing on regardless. The plan pre-Cummings was to hide behind SAGE if things went wrong. What's the plan now when things go wrong, say what about Rosie Duffield?
As for Americans, what the fuck is wrong with them?0 -
0
-
How many people are on furlough now? 8.4m? I wonder how many of those are long term - it doesn't feel to be a wild guess to suggest that 3m or so will lose their jobs as furlough winds down. They may be lucky in being able to pick up jobs from working age parents where 2 days a week schooling from September makes it impossible for them to work full time.DavidL said:
Well if you don’t qualify for any help, like me, and your earnings are down about 70%, the reasons are pretty obvious.contrarian said:Alistair said:
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.eek said:
I suspect Johnson's problems are partly mental as he knows that right now things are only going to get worse. Much worse.
The Sunday Times report shows how the economy is in an awful state.
It looks like the economic rebound is far below what the government expected, though why anybody would expect a rebound with the current rules and guidelines in place is beyond me. The disincentives are pretty big.
There must be panic at the treasury as the bills soar into the stratosphere and people show few signs of going back to work.
The horrible dilemma that Sunak and Johnson have got themselves in is that if they do what is takes to get Britain going by loosening lockdown more and earlier, the scientists will scream louder than they already are. Scientists they claimed they were following.
PLus, furlough means that the voters are on the scientists' side and not theirs. Why would anybody want furlough to end?
Plus anyone with a brain in their head is going to worry about whether there is going to be a job to go back to, a message that is going to be reinforced by almost daily large scale redundancies from here on.
As usual, it is only the public sector that is divorced from reality.
Either way this is an economic and social shitshow. We appear to be on track for the worst of both worlds - an infection rate that is high enough to stop us trying to go back to normal, that prohibits Brits almost uniquely from being allowed to have beach holidays abroad this year. And an economic collapse caused by not being able to get people back to work safely.
Those international comparisons the government was so keen on when it made them look good and then dropped like a brick when it made them look bad? Just think of the cut through they will have when France and Denmark and pretty much everywhere else have largely beaten this thing and are in recovery, whilst we continue to have an underlying high infection rate and flareups caused by "go have a BBQ" pronouncements.0 -
Fifty sets of laws over there.. it must be hell for lawyersDougSeal said:
Depends on the State. I read he has been charged with manslaughter so I guess it is possible in MinnesotaBeibheirli_C said:
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.Charles said:
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.
0 -
AlastairMeeks said:
Given the government is unable to tell us the current Covid alert level on its own scale, introduced by the Prime Minister just three weeks ago and the main political development in the interim was Dominic Cummings’ grand tour, you have to suspect that was the reason it has effectively beenDavidL said:
Rubbish. Reality (and economic consequences in particular) happened.Scott_xP said:
Cummings happenedRochdalePioneers said:Whatever happened to "we are led by the science?"
junked.
The Covid alert scale was always a gimmick but it was not designed to be reviewed on a daily basis. Is it not due to be announced today or tomorrow?
The reality is that the economic consequences are horrendous and we are being driven to relaxing the lockdown with none of the essential elements in place namely adequate testing capacity, fast testing capacity and adequate tracing capacity (which goes beyond the lack of an App).
The lack of focus on what was required to get out of lockdown is a disgrace and a further consequence of incompetence at the political level and ineptitude at the scientific level. But there is no choice. We need to live and die with the consequences of those mistakes.
I just find this obsession with Cummings frankly bizarre.2 -
The EU don't give a crap whether we have No Deal or not - and that is clear to anyone who isn't drinking the Kool aid2
-
On that we agree, their language should be more neutral and professional, rather than speculative and emotive.AlastairMeeks said:
The BBC doesn’t have to follow British laws when they don’t apply. They should still maintain their professional standards.Sandpit said:
They wouldn’t have used that phraseology to describe such an incident in the UK, precisely because they know it would be a contempt of court. They’d have said the usual “Person X has been charged with murder over the death of person Y, who died in circumstance Z, and he will appear in court tomorrow”.AlastairMeeks said:
US laws on contempt of court, which must apply here, are very different from British laws. That said, I don’t care for the BBC using unnecessarily emotive words like murder without the sanction of a court verdict.Alistair said:
You want to watch the video and tell me he wasn't murdered?Charles said:
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?0 -
There are some on here who would watch a video of a volcano exploding and go "until the geologists and vulcanologists have had a chance to examine the evidence I deplore your use of the emotive word 'eruption'.3
-
You could say his job is to educate the country on how to behave during the pandemic.ydoethur said:
Really? I never knew he was a teacher.Alistair said:
The idea that Boris could pop out of ICU and get straight back to the most demanding, stressful job in the country was always completely ludicrous.eek said:
But he hasn’t done his homework.0 -
Discovery Sport. Absolute piece of shit.DecrepiterJohnL said:
What car does Cummings drive? Some on pb have said Range Rover, others Land Rover Discovery; the clip outside his gaff did not look like either imo.ydoethur said:
No. Durham police have not given him a clean bill of health. They said that a prosecution would be disproportionate. Their statement made it very clear they felt, whatever the technicalities of the law, he had driven a coach and four (well, Range Rover) through government guidance and that his trip to Barnard Castle was a breach of the regulations.Mexicanpete said:
No, the moral dimension to the Duffield case make it a straight red like Ferguson.All authorities have given Cummings a clean bill of health. Likewise Jenrick.ydoethur said:
They could have made that decision over the phone. And then, when a new household was made, locked down in that.OldKingCole said:
Not sure how serious her offence actually is. There are surely going to be times when new households are going to be set up....... in fact at one of the very early Coronavirus pressers Dr Harries was asked; 'what about couples who are thinking of living together' ands replied that maybe they'd just have to make a decision.ydoethur said:Off topic (sorry Stuart!)
Just caught up with the news about Rosie Duffield.
Yes, she should have the whip withdrawn. Not sure about a by-election as how would you hold it at this time? With Ferguson, Calderwood and Cummings they could all be easily replaced - in the case of Cummings, probably by somebody better. With Duffield I don’t see that would be possible. I think it most unlikely however that she will be the candidate at the next election, and she may go sooner.
But anyone who thinks this was more serious than Cummings is kidding themselves and looking for false equivalence. He repeatedly broke quarantine. Not lockdown. Quarantine. He did it for reasons that, like Duffield’s, were obviously selfish. But meeting one person is altogether different from driving the length of England, visiting a hospital despite the guidelines being clear that he should not have done, and taking a walk at a beauty spot before returning the length of England - and then repeatedly lying about it.
Duffield’s offence is much closer in level to Jenrick’s, although admittedly more serious than his was.
And that is why Cummings’ story is causing so much fury and destroying the government, while Duffield’s will probably, rightly, end her career but cause little damage to Starmer and the wider Labour Party.
Which, surely, is what Duffield and her partner have.
I think there's a danger of over-reacting here.
I am afraid that however natural and human her impulses, it was a breach of the rules and her own exhortations to stay at home. She’s finished.
Edit - a mitigating factor is she has admitted the offence, apologised and made partial restitution by giving up her frontbench role. Cummings, by contrast, has blamed everybody but himself, clung to his job like a limpet and told a series of increasingly bizarre stories to try and exculpate himself. This does also indicate a high level of moral cowardice on his part - but we knew that already after his select committee appearance.
Duffield may of course face prosecution, but I think it unlikely because, as with Cummings, the immediate sanction would have been to tell her to go home.0 -
The BBC avoids the word terrorist because it adds more heat than light. That offends many. This seems to me to fall into the same category.Alistair said:There are some on here who would watch a video of a volcano exploding and go "until the geologists and vulcanologists have had a chance to examine the evidence I deplore your use of the emotive word 'eruption'.
1 -
I’m sure they won’t complain too loudly!Beibheirli_C said:
Fifty sets of laws over there.. it must be hell for lawyersDougSeal said:
Depends on the State. I read he has been charged with manslaughter so I guess it is possible in MinnesotaBeibheirli_C said:
Surely not, otherwise no one anywhere could be arrested for murder in case they were innocent. The purpose of the trial is to determine guilt or innocence of the charge presented to the court.Charles said:
On Andrew Marr they used the term "murdered".Socky said:
Killed* is pushing it with what is in the public domain, murdered is neither technically true nor helpful language.Theuniondivvie said:Representatives of the state not murdering unarmed black people might be a start; not a solution obvs, but a start.
* I have seen a report that suggests pinning someone down by their neck is standard police procedure, and that the dead man died from a pre-existing medical condition. Having said that I can see why the authorities arrested the officer, not to do so would be horrible from a PR perspective.
Now IANAL, but doesn't that assume that the policeman is guilty before his trial?
Also, IIRC, there is no "manslaughter" charge in the USA. It is Murder 2 or something but you get charged with murder.0 -
I don't think "led by science" is a particularly sensible touchstone. The UK government apparently has lost interest in getting the infection levels down, which means that Test, Track and Isolate won't work and we will probably be in a debilitating and death-inducing semi-lockdown for the foreseeable future.RochdalePioneers said:Whatever happened to "we are led by the science?" It's crystal clear the health experts do not want us to ease lockdown. The government are pressing on regardless. The plan pre-Cummings was to hide behind SAGE if things went wrong. What's the plan now when things go wrong, say what about Rosie Duffield?
As for Americans, what the fuck is wrong with them?
The scientists are pointing out the consequences of the government's choices. The people in this government just don't accept the consequences of their decisions (see Brexit).1
