The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
Of course it isn't. Morality is variable. Some cultures believe it moral to kill criminals and chop their hands off. The law is the same for everyone, which is why we have rule of law in this country.
And the only way to change the rule of law is to change the law - ie democratically.
But non-violent breaches of the law very frequently can and have led to showing where the law is an ass and led to it being changed.
If we only ever waited until the law was changed then we'd be in a much worse situation.
'mob rule is good when the mob does something I agree with'.
Bristol police say there will be no further action after protesters explain they were unsure whether they were strong enough to pull down statues and were simply testing whether they were fit to do so.
The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
Indeed.
Have we reached the "She's a witch! Burn her!!!" stage yet?
It depends. It feels like for much of the right on here that I'd normally agree with on most other things that I'm the witch to be burnt for backing protestors over the law
Bristol police say there will be no further action after protesters explain they were unsure whether they were strong enough to pull down statues and were simply testing whether they were fit to do so.
Slippery slope arguments are the preserve of those with no better argument to use.
If Rhodes should stay make the case for Rhodes. If Churchill should stay make the case for Churchill. If slavers should stay make the case for slavers.
One is not the same as the other.
The case was made for Colston, yet the mob still tore it down anyway.
Sometimes people have to stand up to the tyranny of the majority.
If the majority want Colston back they can put him back. Lets see if it happens.
'Mob rule is good when the mob does something I want'
Mob rule is neither good nor bad.
People should do what they think is right, people should vote based upon what they think is right. The law should be enforced within reason but if someone is willing to risk facing the consequences of the law that's their choice.
Do you want to live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed, no exceptions?
No I want to live in a country where the law applies to everybody equally without fear or favour. A country where nobody can disobey laws and get away with it because they have the 'correct' personal morality.
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
I was much releived to find my family on the line I managed to go back to 1599 on, were either of no particular note or actually in one or two cases ardent Quaker abolitionists.
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
One of the striking things from the BBC programme Who do you think you are ? was just how widespread slavery was. Many of the black celebs expecting to find their ancestors as liberated slaves were shocked when it turned out they were slave owners instead.
In shock news, years ago slavery was widespread across the world. We know African's were involved in providing bodies for the slave trade and that Arabs had plenty. And most people's relatives from back in the day were all involved in some pretty heinous stuff, wars, raping, pillaging. History is complicated.
Slippery slope arguments are the preserve of those with no better argument to use.
If Rhodes should stay make the case for Rhodes. If Churchill should stay make the case for Churchill. If slavers should stay make the case for slavers.
One is not the same as the other.
The case was made for Colston, yet the mob still tore it down anyway.
Sometimes people have to stand up to the tyranny of the majority.
If the majority want Colston back they can put him back. Lets see if it happens.
'Mob rule is good when the mob does something I want'
Mob rule is neither good nor bad.
People should do what they think is right, people should vote based upon what they think is right. The law should be enforced within reason but if someone is willing to risk facing the consequences of the law that's their choice.
Do you want to live in an authoritarian dictatorship where the law must be obeyed, no exceptions?
No I want to live in a country where the law applies to everybody equally without fear or favour. A country where nobody can disobey laws and get away with it because they have the 'correct' personal morality.
What about a country where people are prepared and willing to disobey laws and face the consequences of that law, for what they believe is right?
I'm happier to live in that country than one where people have no choice whether they follow the law or not.
Biden has the biggest, most durable lead of any presidential challenger ever. He's more personally popular than Trump. The wrong-track number is at -38. And there are only 20 weekends left before Election Day.
Lets hope. In the closing stages of the campaign Trump will demand rifle-toting loons to defend the ballot boxes against liberals and the MSM. And having lost will tell them that they have just a few short weeks to stop their country taken away.
Lets be honest about this. If he loses, Trump isn't going to depart quietly. He'll try and provoke an armed insurrection against the Powers That Be.
But once he's lost most of his republican collaborators will abandon him in a flash.
He'll complain, but I don't think he'll do anything that would ensure that he goes to prison for a long time, too much of a coward. Unless he's convinced he's going to prison anyway, which is actually quite likely when I think about it. Shit.
The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
Of course it isn't. Morality is variable. Some cultures believe it moral to kill criminals and chop their hands off. The law is the same for everyone, which is why we have rule of law in this country.
And the only way to change the rule of law is to change the law - ie democratically.
But non-violent breaches of the law very frequently can and have led to showing where the law is an ass and led to it being changed.
If we only ever waited until the law was changed then we'd be in a much worse situation.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
That's a completely insane view point.
People should be free to carry out extra judicial punishments of they feel the law is wrong?!
Once again I feel vindicated leaving the Tory party. It didn't feel right being in the same party as you and HYFUD. I hope @Casino_Royale and @DavidL are beginning to see the party is no longer for people like us.
I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Basically. Not 100% but yes that's the essence of it.
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
The old Tory attitude used to be that obeying the law, even if you happened to dislike some of its elements, was moral in itself. This à-la-carte approach - that it's up to the individual to decide what laws are worth bothering with - would have been an anathema to Tories even ten years ago. I suppose it all ties in with the contempt for the judiciary, constitutional norms etc. that has been the hallmark of Borisism - obedience is for slaves.
Biden has the biggest, most durable lead of any presidential challenger ever. He's more personally popular than Trump. The wrong-track number is at -38. And there are only 20 weekends left before Election Day.
Lets hope. In the closing stages of the campaign Trump will demand rifle-toting loons to defend the ballot boxes against liberals and the MSM. And having lost will tell them that they have just a few short weeks to stop their country taken away.
Lets be honest about this. If he loses, Trump isn't going to depart quietly. He'll try and provoke an armed insurrection against the Powers That Be.
But once he's lost most of his republican collaborators will abandon him in a flash.
He'll complain, but I don't think he'll do anything that would ensure that he goes to prison for a long time, too much of a coward. Unless he's convinced he's going to prison anyway, which is actually quite likely when I think about it. Shit.
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
I was much releived to find my family on the line I managed to go back to 1599 on, were either of no particular note or actually in one or two cases ardent Quaker abolitionists.
I'm fully aware those compensated slave owners will have millions of descendants but if you follow the money, it's traditionally passed down the paternal line...
Another small piece of evidence in favour of masks:
Just back from Morrisons. Very high mask usage with women in there. Almost all of them in fact. But not so the men. A really quite striking gender split. So yet another instance, to join so many others, of Viva La Femme!
And of course women much less likely to suffer badly from this.
The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
Indeed.
Have we reached the "She's a witch! Burn her!!!" stage yet?
It depends. It feels like for much of the right on here that I'd normally agree with on most other things that I'm the witch to be burnt for backing protestors over the law
Not really - you are just presenting a controversial view so people will naturally challenge.
Oxford professor Richard Werner said the euro has become a doomsday machine. “In the end it destabilises every country in one way or another. It will be Germany’s turn next,” he said.
Slippery slope arguments are the preserve of those with no better argument to use.
If Rhodes should stay make the case for Rhodes. If Churchill should stay make the case for Churchill. If slavers should stay make the case for slavers.
One is not the same as the other.
The case was made for Colston, yet the mob still tore it down anyway.
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
It's miserable when you have become utterly irrelevant.
Getting attacked by the loonies helps Starmer immensely. He has to marginalise the people who dragged the Labour party down, suspend anyone guilty of antisemitism and let the Kerry-Anne Mendozas slink back to the SWP or wherever it was they came from.
The Tories have largely learned the lesson that you steer well clear of the Tommy Robinsons of this world. Labour needs to learn the same lesson with the hard left. Starmer gives every indication that he gets it.
The Tories have some dim people on the back benches but I haven't noticed any Tommy Robinsons. Whereas Labour have quite a number of back benchers who are candidates for the left equivalent. SKS himself is clearly electable, but whether his party is so is a much trickier question.
Blair had nutters like Corbyn on his back benches. Thank goodness he just ignored them.
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
One of the striking things from the BBC programme Who do you think you are ? was just how widespread slavery was. Many of the black celebs expecting to find their ancestors as liberated slaves were shocked when it turned out they were slave owners instead.
In shock news, years ago slavery was widespread across the world. We know African's were involved in providing bodies for the slave trade and that Arabs had plenty. And most people's relatives from back in the day were all involved in some pretty heinous stuff, wars, raping, pillaging. History is complicated.
It's estimated the barbary pirates sold up to a million Europeans into slavery. Mostly from countries in the Med but with outing to Ireland and Britain too. The entire population of Baltimore in Co. Cork was taken off in one raid.
Forget people thinking that dumping a statue in the harbour is the most important issue in the world...these stories of big companies announcing large layoffs are now daily.
The boss of UK-based oil giant BP has told staff it plans to cut 10,000 jobs from its global workforce after being hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic.
Were sorry you find it disgraceful but having reviewed the footage we feel they acted responsibly, illegally but with integrity, and that we shouldnt get distracted from fighting this virus
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
It is shortly undergoing renovations and when it reopens it will do with a different name.
A better example is Wills Memorial Building. The same people outraged by Colston related things are equally outraged by Wills family, who made their money in tobacco (which was obviously picked by slaves).
The reaction of some people on this site to the extremely basic, common-sense proposition that "legal" is not synonymous with "moral" is pretty eye-opening.
Of course it isn't. Morality is variable. Some cultures believe it moral to kill criminals and chop their hands off. The law is the same for everyone, which is why we have rule of law in this country.
But the law is also the same for everyone in countries that kill criminals and chop their hands off.
So I don't quite see your point here.
The point being that within the UK there are differences between what people accept as moral. Some believe adultery is immoral and should be punishable, is it ok for them to do so under this new regime of "do what you feel is right" others believe ownership of propety is theft or taxation is morally wrong, how do we deal with that?
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
It could always be renamed? One does wonder why the Powers-That-Be in Bristol seem hell-bent on protecting the "good" name of a known slaver?
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
That's a completely insane view point.
People should be free to carry out extra judicial punishments of they feel the law is wrong?!
Once again I feel vindicated leaving the Tory party. It didn't feel right being in the same party as you and HYFUD. I hope @Casino_Royale and @DavidL are beginning to see the party is no longer for people like us.
I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Basically. Not 100% but yes that's the essence of it.
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
"Chaotic good" as a position needs testing against an adverse situation, like the "chaotic good" moralist with a knife who has decided that the world will be even better in the absence of Philip Thompson and intends to act on it. I say "The law is the law. Stop him. protect Philip Thompson."
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
There is also a very famous Colston's school
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
The reason it hadn't got anywhere is because the people of Bristol had rejected the arguments being made.
Where the arguments were successfully made, change followed. For example, a few years ago a primary school named after Colston renamed itself Cotham Green School with the full support of parents and staff.
We should not be in the situation where what seems to have been a bunch of largely white anarchists decide that because a majority considers them to be wrong about the need to remove a statue they think is racist they are free to smash it up instead to demonstrate their political cred.
I mean, where does that lead? Supposing Corbyn had won the last election, would I have been justified in throwing him in the Thames because I disapprove of anti-semites?
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
Not convinced. My great-grandfather (a Royal Navy captain, later admiral) was involved in hunting slave-traders and challenged the New South Wales authorities with complicity, in what I've always felt was rather an inspiring tale of a serving officer going beyond his duty when he saw something wrong:
I tried to get his book republished - it's long out of copyright, of course - with some very beautiful paintings of the South Seas that I've inherited, but was unsuccessful in finding a publisher.
By the way, for those wringing their hands about how the justice system can possibly cope with somebody not being punished for tearing down a statue of a slave trader, we actually already have a way of dealing with this: jury nullification. If the jury believes that a crime was committed, but that the appliciation of the law that was contrevened is unjust in this case, they are completely within their rights to find "not guilty". E.g. Alan Blythe: https://volteface.me/feature/jury-nullification/
This rather neatly solves the problem of how do we decide which statues can and can't be torn down. There's no need for legal precedent or any official body to make that decision, it's up to the individual juries. And somebody who sees someone escape punishment for tearing down one statue, and who is now contemplating tearing down another statue- say of Churchill, or Thatcher- would have to ask themselves "Would I expect a jury of my peers to find me not guilty?" So no free pass, and no mob rule.
(Another aspect of jury nullification that you mind find appealing is that it's very rarely used, and so it's very unlikely that the people tearing down this statue will actually be found not guilty)
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
I was much releived to find my family on the line I managed to go back to 1599 on, were either of no particular note or actually in one or two cases ardent Quaker abolitionists.
I'm fully aware those compensated slave owners will have millions of descendants but if you follow the money, it's traditionally passed down the paternal line...
Indeed. Having a huge dowry was never considered an asset for any marriageable female
Off topic but an example of why this government does not know its arse from its elbow:-
1. There are press reports about pubs being allowed to open from 22nd June. 2. For this to happen - apart from the changes in the regulations needed and guidance about HSE - pubs need to:- - Get rid of the old barrels which need to be got rid of in a proper manner. The beer is not just flushed down the drain. - All the lines cleaned and prepared and tested. - Gas canisters ordered for gas-assisted ale and lagers etc. These are usually ordered - at least in rural areas - on a fortnightly basis. - Beer ordered. That assumes that small breweries are actually brewing now. They are not back to work yet so there would be no products for anyone to sell. - The beer settled, racked and prepared, ready for serving. That takes a bare minimum of 6 days - if you want good beer. - Heineken has already announced that its first deliveries will be made in the week beginning 22nd June. Here deliveries will not be before 26 June.
How can pubs possibly order stuff now without knowing whether they will legally or practically be able to open on a date vaguely being canvassed in public by idiot politicians without any practical knowledge of what actually is involved in running a small business? It is absolutely absurd.
Realistically. - because it would take an absolute minimum of 2 weeks - the earliest anything can sensibly open is 4 July.
And how are eating and drinking places supposed to operate without loos? Does no-one in government have any understanding of human physiology?
Daughter is incandescent with fury. No certainty. No clue. No guidance. No ability to plan. The changes to the furlough scheme are unclear and there is a deadline of this Wednesday which will impact on what can be done re staff come July.
And to top it all, there is the fear that this is being rushed through for PR reasons, infections will go up again and they could be shut down again - and with no recourse to insurance. Again. And having lost - again - any money spent on stock.
We have fuckwits in charge. Absolute fuckwits.
Neither I nor daughter are normally ones for violence but if we had Boris or one of his morons in front of us now they would get such a bollocking their ears would be ringing from now until Xmas 2024.
Forget people thinking that dumping a statue in the harbour is the most important issue in the world...these stories of big companies announcing large layoffs are now daily.
The boss of UK-based oil giant BP has told staff it plans to cut 10,000 jobs from its global workforce after being hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic.
Indeed. Wednesday is D-Day regarding new furlough requirements. This, and the widespread flouting of social distancing on the protests and elsewhere, ought to be overshadowing a statue.
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
Inherent in the idea of 'debate' and 'due process' is that your own side might lose. Not 'ok we'll have a short debate and then do what we wanted to do'. This is a historian?
Off topic but an example of why this government does not know its arse from its elbow:-
1. There are press reports about pubs being allowed to open from 22nd June. 2. For this to happen - apart from the changes in the regulations needed and guidance about HSE - pubs need to:- - Get rid of the old barrels which need to be got rid of in a proper manner. The beer is not just flushed down the drain. - All the lines cleaned and prepared and tested. - Gas canisters ordered for gas-assisted ale and lagers etc. These are usually ordered - at least in rural areas - on a fortnightly basis. - Beer ordered. That assumes that small breweries are actually brewing now. They are not back to work yet so there would be no products for anyone to sell. - The beer settled, racked and prepared, ready for serving. That takes a bare minimum of 6 days - if you want good beer. - Heineken has already announced that its first deliveries will be made in the week beginning 22nd June. Here deliveries will not be before 26 June.
How can pubs possibly order stuff now without knowing whether they will legally or practically be able to open on a date vaguely being canvassed in public by idiot politicians without any practical knowledge of what actually is involved in running a small business? It is absolutely absurd.
Realistically. - because it would take an absolute minimum of 2 weeks - the earliest anything can sensibly open is 4 July.
And how are eating and drinking places supposed to operate without loos? Does no-one in government have any understanding of human physiology?
Daughter is incandescent with fury. No certainty. No clue. No guidance. No ability to plan. The changes to the furlough scheme are unclear and there is a deadline of this Wednesday which will impact on what can be done re staff come July.
And to top it all, there is the fear that this is being rushed through for PR reasons, infections will go up again and they could be shut down again - and with no recourse to insurance. Again. And having lost - again - any money spent on stock.
We have fuckwits in charge. Absolute fuckwits.
Neither I nor daughter are normally ones for violence but if we had Boris or one of his morons in front of us now they would get such a bollocking their ears would be ringing from now until Xmas 2024.
I won't 'like' that because it might be misconstrued.
But that is a great post.
And I am really sorry for your daughter in this horrible situation.
•It was illegal for women to protest in 1911 seeking the vote •It was illegal for youths to resist laws making them join Hitler Youth •It was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit on that seat •It was illegal for gay men to have sex •It was illegal to steal Trevalyan’s corn
By the way, for those wringing their hands about how the justice system can possibly cope with somebody not being punished for tearing down a statue of a slave trader, we actually already have a way of dealing with this: jury nullification. If the jury believes that a crime was committed, but that the appliciation of the law that was contrevened is unjust in this case, they are completely within their rights to find "not guilty". E.g. Alan Blythe: https://volteface.me/feature/jury-nullification/
This rather neatly solves the problem of how do we decide which statues can and can't be torn down. There's no need for legal precedent or any official body to make that decision, it's up to the individual juries. And somebody who sees someone escape punishment for tearing down one statue, and who is now contemplating tearing down another statue- say of Churchill, or Thatcher- would have to ask themselves "Would I expect a jury of my peers to find me not guilty?" So no free pass, and no mob rule.
(Another aspect of jury nullification that you mind find appealing is that it's very rarely used, and so it's very unlikely that the people tearing down this statue will actually be found not guilty)
The magnificent Dr Arthur and, perhaps slightly less saintly Clive Ponting come to mind.
America is not far gone enough to give him another term. It will be so so ugly, this election, but he cannot win.
Would you like to join me and @Alistair and @Stocky in the TrumpToast club?
We've been stuck on 3 for too long. Criteria for joining - supreme confidence that he loses in November and a strong hunch it will not even be close.
No. I don't want to jinx my Betfair book.
- I get you.
I've just closed mine out for quite a decent profit.
But before you shout at me, here's the thinking. My USP has now become not so much Trump will lose - since I sense this dawning on people and about to become a clear consensus - but that it will NOT be close.
So, I'm waiting for the spreads and hoping my expectation of a probable Dem landslide at that point is still niche.
Then I sell his EC quote - 245? - for an eye-watering unit stake.
Turnout is the big thing for me. Anyone anti-Trump will be voting this time. And some of Trump`s voters (who had never voted before) won`t bother this time. The result: a clear Dem win.
For me the biggest factor is your 2nd - people who voted for him reluctantly last time not doing so this time having seen the reality of him in office. Also Biden does not attract the (imo misogynist) ire that HRC did.
Anyway, we have this and we were ahead of the game. Sense the queues building for TrumpToast club and we may have to bring in a waiting list.
But still slightly wary of (1) Joe's marbles and (2) Trump cheating.
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
It is shortly undergoing renovations and when it reopens it will do with a different name.
A better example is Wills Memorial Building. The same people outraged by Colston related things are equally outraged by Wills family, who made their money in tobacco (which was obviously picked by slaves).
I'd completely forgotten, but that reminds me that my father used to smoke 'Wills Whiffs', about half a century ago...
From Wikipedia... Up until 1920 only women and girls were employed as cigar-makers. One clause in the women's contract stipulated:
"She shall not contract Matrimony within the said Term, nor play at Card or Dice Tables, or any other unlawful Games."
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
There is also a very famous Colston's school
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
I'm not convinced that the statue of Colston felt particularly intimidated.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
Off topic but an example of why this government does not know its arse from its elbow:-
1. There are press reports about pubs being allowed to open from 22nd June. 2. For this to happen - apart from the changes in the regulations needed and guidance about HSE - pubs need to:- - Get rid of the old barrels which need to be got rid of in a proper manner. The beer is not just flushed down the drain. - All the lines cleaned and prepared and tested. - Gas canisters ordered for gas-assisted ale and lagers etc. These are usually ordered - at least in rural areas - on a fortnightly basis. - Beer ordered. That assumes that small breweries are actually brewing now. They are not back to work yet so there would be no products for anyone to sell. - The beer settled, racked and prepared, ready for serving. That takes a bare minimum of 6 days - if you want good beer. - Heineken has already announced that its first deliveries will be made in the week beginning 22nd June. Here deliveries will not be before 26 June.
How can pubs possibly order stuff now without knowing whether they will legally or practically be able to open on a date vaguely being canvassed in public by idiot politicians without any practical knowledge of what actually is involved in running a small business? It is absolutely absurd.
Realistically. - because it would take an absolute minimum of 2 weeks - the earliest anything can sensibly open is 4 July.
And how are eating and drinking places supposed to operate without loos? Does no-one in government have any understanding of human physiology?
Daughter is incandescent with fury. No certainty. No clue. No guidance. No ability to plan. The changes to the furlough scheme are unclear and there is a deadline of this Wednesday which will impact on what can be done re staff come July.
And to top it all, there is the fear that this is being rushed through for PR reasons, infections will go up again and they could be shut down again - and with no recourse to insurance. Again. And having lost - again - any money spent on stock.
We have fuckwits in charge. Absolute fuckwits.
Neither I nor daughter are normally ones for violence but if we had Boris or one of his morons in front of us now they would get such a bollocking their ears would be ringing from now until Xmas 2024.
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
Inherent in the idea of 'debate' and 'due process' is that your own side might lose. Not 'ok we'll have a short debate and then do what we wanted to do'. This is a historian?
Historically she may have been an Historian - less so now. More unemployed I'd guess.
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
The reason it hadn't got anywhere is because the people of Bristol had rejected the arguments being made.
Where the arguments were successfully made, change followed. For example, a few years ago a primary school named after Colston renamed itself Cotham Green School with the full support of parents and staff.
We should not be in the situation where what seems to have been a bunch of largely white anarchists decide that because a majority considers them to be wrong about the need to remove a statue they think is racist they are free to smash it up instead to demonstrate their political cred.
I mean, where does that lead? Supposing Corbyn had won the last election, would I have been justified in throwing him in the Thames because I disapprove of anti-semites?
When they prosecute and convict the idiots they should give them community service which entails reinstating the statue.
There were perfectly easy ways to remove the statue legally this is where Philips argument is wrong. Breaking an unjust law that you have no means to change all fine. If you can change it easily by just being elected to the council then you have no leg to stand on. That way lies the tyranny of which side has the bigger thugs.
This lie is even more blatant than the "outside agitators" line they're using in the US.
It really doesn't matter if they're green with purple polka dots. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
And if people are prepared to put their values above the law and face up to the law then good for them.
The law is not the be all and end all.
Unfortunately, you're far too stubborn and obstinate to see the sewer you've crawled into (even though you're intelligent enough to recognise some the points are valid, and secretly fear you might not have called this wholly right).
Once you adopt a position you refuse to move off it regardless of how the argument subsequently develops. That's a sign of weakness of character by the way, not strength.
I have lost respect for you.
My position is the same now as it always has been: People should do what they consider to be right.
Nothings changed. How is that a sewer? I fundamentally believe in individuals making their own free choices.
What if people have conflicting views of what is right? How should they be resolved?
Everyone should make their own decisions on what they think is right. You do what you consider is right, I do what I consider to be right.
The law is how we try to compel people to do what we want them to do, but if people really think the law is wrong and are prepared to face up to the consequences of breaking the law then so be it.
That's a completely insane view point.
People should be free to carry out extra judicial punishments of they feel the law is wrong?!
Once again I feel vindicated leaving the Tory party. It didn't feel right being in the same party as you and HYFUD. I hope @Casino_Royale and @DavidL are beginning to see the party is no longer for people like us.
I don't normally agree with Philip - and I don't 100% agree with him here either - but I think he is just saying that where a person acts in a way that is unlawful but is iho morally correct he will be supportive of that person and the illegal act in question.
He is not saying the law should be set aside and the "culprit" not prosecuted. Since this would clearly be a recipe for anarchy.
Have I got that right, Philip?
Basically. Not 100% but yes that's the essence of it.
Some people put the law above right or wrong and make following the law a right in itself. I view right or wrong as being more important than the law.
In Dungeons and Dragons there's a good way of defining this debate, there are two axes of Good, Neutral or Evil on the good or evil spectrum . . . and on law and order there is Chaotic, Neutral or Lawful. Leaving 9 different combinations you can end up with. You can be Lawful Evil or any other combination.
On that basis I would class my philosophy as Chaotic Good. The right thing to do matters more than the law. In Superhero lore the most famous distinction between Lawful Good and Chaotic Good is Superman (Lawful Good) versus Batman (Chaotic Good).
"Chaotic good" as a position needs testing against an adverse situation, like the "chaotic good" moralist with a knife who has decided that the world will be even better in the absence of Philip Thompson and intends to act on it. I say "The law is the law. Stop him. protect Philip Thompson."
A moralist who did that couldn't be Chaotic Good.
The difference between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil is that violence against an innocent person isn't morally permitted under Chaotic Good.
•It was illegal for women to protest in 1911 seeking the vote •It was illegal for youths to resist laws making them join Hitler Youth •It was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit on that seat •It was illegal for gay men to have sex •It was illegal to steal Trevalyan’s corn
Point of technicality, Rosa Parks was sat in the 'coloured seat' as the law at the time required her to do so..
Biden has the biggest, most durable lead of any presidential challenger ever. He's more personally popular than Trump. The wrong-track number is at -38. And there are only 20 weekends left before Election Day.
Lets hope. In the closing stages of the campaign Trump will demand rifle-toting loons to defend the ballot boxes against liberals and the MSM. And having lost will tell them that they have just a few short weeks to stop their country taken away.
Lets be honest about this. If he loses, Trump isn't going to depart quietly. He'll try and provoke an armed insurrection against the Powers That Be.
It will be more during the vote than afterwards. If it is successful and he wins the vote then he ends up with the Supreme Court and military on his side - he loses both if he loses the election.
So expect to hear a lot about the danger of Democrats stealing the election, to encourage and justify violence on polling day.
•It was illegal for women to protest in 1911 seeking the vote
It wasn't illegal for them to protest. And many thousands of suffragists did protest, peacefully, legally and through a variety of methods.
It was illegal for the Suffragettes to riot, commit acts of terrorism or seek to murder politicians.
The less often commented point is that it was also extremely counter-productive. For example, Emily Davison's actions seem to have hardened Asquith in particular against the idea of giving women the vote, as his supporters had concluded they couldn't be trusted with it.
Funny, all the Brexiteers' warning of blood on the streets seemed to evaporate when they were given what they wanted (in so far as they were clear even in their own heads what it was that they wanted).
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
There is also a very famous Colston's school
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
You may not be able to distinguish between tearing down a statue of somebody and intimidating children from a school named after that person, but fortunately it appears that the protesters can.
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
Inherent in the idea of 'debate' and 'due process' is that your own side might lose. Not 'ok we'll have a short debate and then do what we wanted to do'. This is a historian?
Quite klaxon sounding hard.
They don't want a debate, they want to shame your for your thoughts.
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
There is also a very famous Colston's school
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
I'm not convinced that the statue of Colston felt particularly intimidated.
Off topic but an example of why this government does not know its arse from its elbow:-
1. There are press reports about pubs being allowed to open from 22nd June. 2. For this to happen - apart from the changes in the regulations needed and guidance about HSE - pubs need to:- - Get rid of the old barrels which need to be got rid of in a proper manner. The beer is not just flushed down the drain. - All the lines cleaned and prepared and tested. - Gas canisters ordered for gas-assisted ale and lagers etc. These are usually ordered - at least in rural areas - on a fortnightly basis. - Beer ordered. That assumes that small breweries are actually brewing now. They are not back to work yet so there would be no products for anyone to sell. - The beer settled, racked and prepared, ready for serving. That takes a bare minimum of 6 days - if you want good beer. - Heineken has already announced that its first deliveries will be made in the week beginning 22nd June. Here deliveries will not be before 26 June.
How can pubs possibly order stuff now without knowing whether they will legally or practically be able to open on a date vaguely being canvassed in public by idiot politicians without any practical knowledge of what actually is involved in running a small business? It is absolutely absurd.
Realistically. - because it would take an absolute minimum of 2 weeks - the earliest anything can sensibly open is 4 July.
And how are eating and drinking places supposed to operate without loos? Does no-one in government have any understanding of human physiology?
Daughter is incandescent with fury. No certainty. No clue. No guidance. No ability to plan. The changes to the furlough scheme are unclear and there is a deadline of this Wednesday which will impact on what can be done re staff come July.
And to top it all, there is the fear that this is being rushed through for PR reasons, infections will go up again and they could be shut down again - and with no recourse to insurance. Again. And having lost - again - any money spent on stock.
We have fuckwits in charge. Absolute fuckwits.
Neither I nor daughter are normally ones for violence but if we had Boris or one of his morons in front of us now they would get such a bollocking their ears would be ringing from now until Xmas 2024.
I won't 'like' that because it might be misconstrued.
But that is a great post.
And I am really sorry for your daughter in this horrible situation.
I can only imagine how frustrating it must be.
If I can make a small suggestion - thought it is wonderful to have beer on tap, I would do a bottle bar in the immediate term.
Off topic but an example of why this government does not know its arse from its elbow:-
1. There are press reports about pubs being allowed to open from 22nd June. 2. For this to happen - apart from the changes in the regulations needed and guidance about HSE - pubs need to:- - Get rid of the old barrels which need to be got rid of in a proper manner. The beer is not just flushed down the drain. - All the lines cleaned and prepared and tested. - Gas canisters ordered for gas-assisted ale and lagers etc. These are usually ordered - at least in rural areas - on a fortnightly basis. - Beer ordered. That assumes that small breweries are actually brewing now. They are not back to work yet so there would be no products for anyone to sell. - The beer settled, racked and prepared, ready for serving. That takes a bare minimum of 6 days - if you want good beer. - Heineken has already announced that its first deliveries will be made in the week beginning 22nd June. Here deliveries will not be before 26 June.
How can pubs possibly order stuff now without knowing whether they will legally or practically be able to open on a date vaguely being canvassed in public by idiot politicians without any practical knowledge of what actually is involved in running a small business? It is absolutely absurd.
Realistically. - because it would take an absolute minimum of 2 weeks - the earliest anything can sensibly open is 4 July.
And how are eating and drinking places supposed to operate without loos? Does no-one in government have any understanding of human physiology?
Daughter is incandescent with fury. No certainty. No clue. No guidance. No ability to plan. The changes to the furlough scheme are unclear and there is a deadline of this Wednesday which will impact on what can be done re staff come July.
And to top it all, there is the fear that this is being rushed through for PR reasons, infections will go up again and they could be shut down again - and with no recourse to insurance. Again. And having lost - again - any money spent on stock.
We have fuckwits in charge. Absolute fuckwits.
Neither I nor daughter are normally ones for violence but if we had Boris or one of his morons in front of us now they would get such a bollocking their ears would be ringing from now until Xmas 2024.
Schools go back June 1. Pubs re-open June 22. That is the PR line. I should imagine a similar proportion of pubs to open as kids who are back at school.
Philip Thompson, who is miles to the right of me and I never thought I would agree with, is actually espousing a logical moral attitude. The crucial point is that defying a law because you think it wrong is the moral thing to do as long as you don't try to escape the penalty. Think of Quakers refusing to fight. They accept the penalty. The people who threw the statue in Bristol harbour need to step up and argue their case in court.
The irony is that if convicted, the penalty is likely to include the cost of re-erecting the statue.
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
There is also a very famous Colston's school
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
You may not be able to distinguish between tearing down a statue of somebody and intimidating children from a school named after that person, but fortunately it appears that the protesters can.
Well they can for the moment. Who knows what they might target in the future? It seems they have your blessing, whatever they do.
Pubs open in a fortnight apparently. Are there not some more socially distanced measures like people being allowed to stay overnight in their OWN caravans and second homes that should come before this ?!
Off topic but an example of why this government does not know its arse from its elbow:-
1. There are press reports about pubs being allowed to open from 22nd June. 2. For this to happen - apart from the changes in the regulations needed and guidance about HSE - pubs need to:- - Get rid of the old barrels which need to be got rid of in a proper manner. The beer is not just flushed down the drain. - All the lines cleaned and prepared and tested. - Gas canisters ordered for gas-assisted ale and lagers etc. These are usually ordered - at least in rural areas - on a fortnightly basis. - Beer ordered. That assumes that small breweries are actually brewing now. They are not back to work yet so there would be no products for anyone to sell. - The beer settled, racked and prepared, ready for serving. That takes a bare minimum of 6 days - if you want good beer. - Heineken has already announced that its first deliveries will be made in the week beginning 22nd June. Here deliveries will not be before 26 June.
How can pubs possibly order stuff now without knowing whether they will legally or practically be able to open on a date vaguely being canvassed in public by idiot politicians without any practical knowledge of what actually is involved in running a small business? It is absolutely absurd.
Realistically. - because it would take an absolute minimum of 2 weeks - the earliest anything can sensibly open is 4 July.
And how are eating and drinking places supposed to operate without loos? Does no-one in government have any understanding of human physiology?
Daughter is incandescent with fury. No certainty. No clue. No guidance. No ability to plan. The changes to the furlough scheme are unclear and there is a deadline of this Wednesday which will impact on what can be done re staff come July.
And to top it all, there is the fear that this is being rushed through for PR reasons, infections will go up again and they could be shut down again - and with no recourse to insurance. Again. And having lost - again - any money spent on stock.
We have fuckwits in charge. Absolute fuckwits.
Neither I nor daughter are normally ones for violence but if we had Boris or one of his morons in front of us now they would get such a bollocking their ears would be ringing from now until Xmas 2024.
Sadly, I am not surprised. The understanding of business by those in government has been in decline for a long time. Now that the "wave the hand in the air and something will turn up" mob are in charge, it is merely accentuating what a lot of people had suspected.
This Tory Party (UKIP-lite) are not the party of business, nor the party of pragmatism - they are a bunch of bombastic half-wits who mistake ignorance for intelligence.
There are a lot of Cyclefree-daughter type people out there. They are easily identifiable by the lumps of hair they pulled out whilst reading Westminster's Edicts.
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
One of the striking things from the BBC programme Who do you think you are ? was just how widespread slavery was. Many of the black celebs expecting to find their ancestors as liberated slaves were shocked when it turned out they were slave owners instead.
Is that in the same manner Jeffersons' descendants were fairly recently dismayed to learn that they had some cousins whose ancestors were slaves ?
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
There is also a very famous Colston's school
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
That would obviously be harming people. People making these ridiculous arguments seem to be admitting to being massive racists. Otherwise how is anyone harmed by the removal of this statue?
Slippery slope arguments are the preserve of those with no better argument to use.
If Rhodes should stay make the case for Rhodes. If Churchill should stay make the case for Churchill. If slavers should stay make the case for slavers.
One is not the same as the other.
The case was made for Colston, yet the mob still tore it down anyway.
Sometimes people have to stand up to the tyranny of the majority.
If the majority want Colston back they can put him back. Lets see if it happens.
Off topic but an example of why this government does not know its arse from its elbow:-
1. There are press reports about pubs being allowed to open from 22nd June. 2. For this to happen - apart from the changes in the regulations needed and guidance about HSE - pubs need to:- - Get rid of the old barrels which need to be got rid of in a proper manner. The beer is not just flushed down the drain. - All the lines cleaned and prepared and tested. - Gas canisters ordered for gas-assisted ale and lagers etc. These are usually ordered - at least in rural areas - on a fortnightly basis. - Beer ordered. That assumes that small breweries are actually brewing now. They are not back to work yet so there would be no products for anyone to sell. - The beer settled, racked and prepared, ready for serving. That takes a bare minimum of 6 days - if you want good beer. - Heineken has already announced that its first deliveries will be made in the week beginning 22nd June. Here deliveries will not be before 26 June.
How can pubs possibly order stuff now without knowing whether they will legally or practically be able to open on a date vaguely being canvassed in public by idiot politicians without any practical knowledge of what actually is involved in running a small business? It is absolutely absurd.
Realistically. - because it would take an absolute minimum of 2 weeks - the earliest anything can sensibly open is 4 July.
And how are eating and drinking places supposed to operate without loos? Does no-one in government have any understanding of human physiology?
Daughter is incandescent with fury. No certainty. No clue. No guidance. No ability to plan. The changes to the furlough scheme are unclear and there is a deadline of this Wednesday which will impact on what can be done re staff come July.
And to top it all, there is the fear that this is being rushed through for PR reasons, infections will go up again and they could be shut down again - and with no recourse to insurance. Again. And having lost - again - any money spent on stock.
We have fuckwits in charge. Absolute fuckwits.
Neither I nor daughter are normally ones for violence but if we had Boris or one of his morons in front of us now they would get such a bollocking their ears would be ringing from now until Xmas 2024.
As a short term bandage while waiting for teething issues like beer lines, settling beer etc to be dealt with, is opening with bottled beers an option?
I recall during the World Cup there was an issue with CO2 shortages that led to some breweries and pubs running out of beer and/or CO2, one local bar nearby had to sell bottled beer in the short term.
If a bar told me they wouldn't have any beer on draught for a few days until it was ready but they had alternative options I'd be happy to support that bar.
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
I was much releived to find my family on the line I managed to go back to 1599 on, were either of no particular note or actually in one or two cases ardent Quaker abolitionists.
I'm fully aware those compensated slave owners will have millions of descendants but if you follow the money, it's traditionally passed down the paternal line...
Indeed. Having a huge dowry was never considered an asset for any marriageable female
Are you secretly the legendary "Beibheirli of estates and endowments" that is the whole raison detre for PB?
@Cyclefree - The Gov't is perhaps forgetting what it is allowing and disallowing at the moment. Only explanation I can think of. Beer Gardens aren't even allowed open yet. Maybe we've misheard the pubs announcement and it'll be outdoor drinking only. That'd seem a more sensible intermediate step.
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
One of the striking things from the BBC programme Who do you think you are ? was just how widespread slavery was. Many of the black celebs expecting to find their ancestors as liberated slaves were shocked when it turned out they were slave owners instead.
Is that in the same manner Jeffersons' descendants were fairly recently dismayed to learn that they had some cousins whose ancestors were slaves ?
One wonders whether it was the fact that they were slaves or that their lily white ancestors had participated in some (likely non consensual) sexual activity with their black ancestors was the more shocking to these descendants.
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
I was much releived to find my family on the line I managed to go back to 1599 on, were either of no particular note or actually in one or two cases ardent Quaker abolitionists.
I'm fully aware those compensated slave owners will have millions of descendants but if you follow the money, it's traditionally passed down the paternal line...
Indeed. Having a huge dowry was never considered an asset for any marriageable female
Are you secretly the legendary "Beibheirli of estates and endowments" that is the whole raison detre for PB?
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
It could always be renamed? One does wonder why the Powers-That-Be in Bristol seem hell-bent on protecting the "good" name of a known slaver?
Why not rename and relabel the statue?.. There must be some more recent worthy who was "clean"?
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
There is also a very famous Colston's school
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
That would obviously be harming people. People making these ridiculous arguments seem to be admitting to being massive racists. Otherwise how is anyone harmed by the removal of this statue?
The removal of the statue is not the point at all.
It is the manner in which it was removed. It was removed illegally and by mob rule.
If there is such a groundswell of opinion to have it removed, then it should be relatively easy to remove through the proper channels.
Like the way we did brexit. Not by injuring policemen. Not by setting EU flags alight, not by violent demonstations. Not by marching on the embassies of Germany or any other European institution.
By the ballot box. Time and time again, until they got the message.
@Cyclefree rightly details the reality of how the pub trade operates. What the government are saying is simply unachievable. But this shouldn't be surprised considering that so many of the other things they say are laughable.
Politics isn't just a snappy spin line. If you win elections off the back of your spin line you actually have to deliver, and that means knowing how things work. I know that BluestBlue will be here to tell us how the polls are still up for the Tories (by the MoE snigger) but that doesn't matter in the real world. Once again these are people's lives being screwed up.
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
There is also a very famous Colston's school
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
That would obviously be harming people. People making these ridiculous arguments seem to be admitting to being massive racists. Otherwise how is anyone harmed by the removal of this statue?
'Otherwise how is anyone harmed by the burning of this book?'
Off topic but an example of why this government does not know its arse from its elbow:-
1. There are press reports about pubs being allowed to open from 22nd June. 2. For this to happen - apart from the changes in the regulations needed and guidance about HSE - pubs need to:- - Get rid of the old barrels which need to be got rid of in a proper manner. The beer is not just flushed down the drain. - All the lines cleaned and prepared and tested. - Gas canisters ordered for gas-assisted ale and lagers etc. These are usually ordered - at least in rural areas - on a fortnightly basis. - Beer ordered. That assumes that small breweries are actually brewing now. They are not back to work yet so there would be no products for anyone to sell. - The beer settled, racked and prepared, ready for serving. That takes a bare minimum of 6 days - if you want good beer. - Heineken has already announced that its first deliveries will be made in the week beginning 22nd June. Here deliveries will not be before 26 June.
How can pubs possibly order stuff now without knowing whether they will legally or practically be able to open on a date vaguely being canvassed in public by idiot politicians without any practical knowledge of what actually is involved in running a small business? It is absolutely absurd.
Realistically. - because it would take an absolute minimum of 2 weeks - the earliest anything can sensibly open is 4 July.
And how are eating and drinking places supposed to operate without loos? Does no-one in government have any understanding of human physiology?
Daughter is incandescent with fury. No certainty. No clue. No guidance. No ability to plan. The changes to the furlough scheme are unclear and there is a deadline of this Wednesday which will impact on what can be done re staff come July.
And to top it all, there is the fear that this is being rushed through for PR reasons, infections will go up again and they could be shut down again - and with no recourse to insurance. Again. And having lost - again - any money spent on stock.
We have fuckwits in charge. Absolute fuckwits.
Neither I nor daughter are normally ones for violence but if we had Boris or one of his morons in front of us now they would get such a bollocking their ears would be ringing from now until Xmas 2024.
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
There is also a very famous Colston's school
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
You may not be able to distinguish between tearing down a statue of somebody and intimidating children from a school named after that person, but fortunately it appears that the protesters can.
Well they can for the moment. Who knows what they might target in the future? It seems they have your blessing, whatever they do.
There is no good-faith reading of my comment that would lead you to the conclusion of your last sentence. Which leads me to ask: why are you arguing in bad faith? Are you finding it difficult to argue your case and maintain intellectual honesty at the same time? Don't worry, I would too.
Off topic but an example of why this government does not know its arse from its elbow:-
1. There are press reports about pubs being allowed to open from 22nd June. 2. For this to happen - apart from the changes in the regulations needed and guidance about HSE - pubs need to:- - Get rid of the old barrels which need to be got rid of in a proper manner. The beer is not just flushed down the drain. - All the lines cleaned and prepared and tested. - Gas canisters ordered for gas-assisted ale and lagers etc. These are usually ordered - at least in rural areas - on a fortnightly basis. - Beer ordered. That assumes that small breweries are actually brewing now. They are not back to work yet so there would be no products for anyone to sell. - The beer settled, racked and prepared, ready for serving. That takes a bare minimum of 6 days - if you want good beer. - Heineken has already announced that its first deliveries will be made in the week beginning 22nd June. Here deliveries will not be before 26 June.
How can pubs possibly order stuff now without knowing whether they will legally or practically be able to open on a date vaguely being canvassed in public by idiot politicians without any practical knowledge of what actually is involved in running a small business? It is absolutely absurd.
Realistically. - because it would take an absolute minimum of 2 weeks - the earliest anything can sensibly open is 4 July.
And how are eating and drinking places supposed to operate without loos? Does no-one in government have any understanding of human physiology?
Daughter is incandescent with fury. No certainty. No clue. No guidance. No ability to plan. The changes to the furlough scheme are unclear and there is a deadline of this Wednesday which will impact on what can be done re staff come July.
And to top it all, there is the fear that this is being rushed through for PR reasons, infections will go up again and they could be shut down again - and with no recourse to insurance. Again. And having lost - again - any money spent on stock.
We have fuckwits in charge. Absolute fuckwits.
Neither I nor daughter are normally ones for violence but if we had Boris or one of his morons in front of us now they would get such a bollocking their ears would be ringing from now until Xmas 2024.
Schools go back June 1. Pubs re-open June 22. That is the PR line. I should imagine a similar proportion of pubs to open as kids who are back at school.
I am looking forward to the politicians discovering that there is no ON/OFF switch for the airline and travel industries
I wonder how many pilots are out of currency and need simulator training?
•It was illegal for women to protest in 1911 seeking the vote •It was illegal for youths to resist laws making them join Hitler Youth •It was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit on that seat •It was illegal for gay men to have sex •It was illegal to steal Trevalyan’s corn
Point of technicality, Rosa Parks was sat in the 'coloured seat' as the law at the time required her to do so..
Did the Law require her to to surrender her seat to a white passenger ?
Off topic but an example of why this government does not know its arse from its elbow:-
1. There are press reports about pubs being allowed to open from 22nd June. 2. For this to happen - apart from the changes in the regulations needed and guidance about HSE - pubs need to:- - Get rid of the old barrels which need to be got rid of in a proper manner. The beer is not just flushed down the drain. - All the lines cleaned and prepared and tested. - Gas canisters ordered for gas-assisted ale and lagers etc. These are usually ordered - at least in rural areas - on a fortnightly basis. - Beer ordered. That assumes that small breweries are actually brewing now. They are not back to work yet so there would be no products for anyone to sell. - The beer settled, racked and prepared, ready for serving. That takes a bare minimum of 6 days - if you want good beer. - Heineken has already announced that its first deliveries will be made in the week beginning 22nd June. Here deliveries will not be before 26 June.
How can pubs possibly order stuff now without knowing whether they will legally or practically be able to open on a date vaguely being canvassed in public by idiot politicians without any practical knowledge of what actually is involved in running a small business? It is absolutely absurd.
Realistically. - because it would take an absolute minimum of 2 weeks - the earliest anything can sensibly open is 4 July.
And how are eating and drinking places supposed to operate without loos? Does no-one in government have any understanding of human physiology?
Daughter is incandescent with fury. No certainty. No clue. No guidance. No ability to plan. The changes to the furlough scheme are unclear and there is a deadline of this Wednesday which will impact on what can be done re staff come July.
And to top it all, there is the fear that this is being rushed through for PR reasons, infections will go up again and they could be shut down again - and with no recourse to insurance. Again. And having lost - again - any money spent on stock.
We have fuckwits in charge. Absolute fuckwits.
Neither I nor daughter are normally ones for violence but if we had Boris or one of his morons in front of us now they would get such a bollocking their ears would be ringing from now until Xmas 2024.
I won't 'like' that because it might be misconstrued.
But that is a great post.
And I am really sorry for your daughter in this horrible situation.
I can only imagine how frustrating it must be.
If I can make a small suggestion - thought it is wonderful to have beer on tap, I would do a bottle bar in the immediate term.
The import supply chain is up shit creek. Every week Daughter orders a case of Carling, Peroni, Kronenbourg, Fosters and Moretti. She can only reliably get Peroni and the majority of the time the rest don’t come. Supply is intermittent and cannot be relied on.
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
There is also a very famous Colston's school
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
That would obviously be harming people. People making these ridiculous arguments seem to be admitting to being massive racists. Otherwise how is anyone harmed by the removal of this statue?
The removal of the statue is not the point at all.
It is the manner in which it was removed. It was removed illegally and by mob rule.
If there is such a groundswell of opinion to have it removed, then it should be relatively easy to remove through the proper channels.
Like the way we did brexit. Not by injuring policemen. Not by setting EU flags alight, not by violent demonstations. Not by marching on the embassies of Germany or any other European institution.
By the ballot box. Time and time again, until they got the message.
So if a minority want it down but can't convince a majority its a priority they have no right to act, to protest, to do so knowing the consequences?
The statue hasn't been destroyed and can be repaired and put back up. If the majority wants it up they can put it back up. Though we all know they likely won't, which says it all.
Historian Kate Williams is defending on Twitter the pulling down of Colston's statue saying there had been debate over the statue for ages and it had got nowhere so direct action was justified. There is also a Colston Concert Hall in Bristol and the debate over changing the name hasn't had a result so far so would it be justified to burn the building down? Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
There is also a very famous Colston's school
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
That would obviously be harming people. People making these ridiculous arguments seem to be admitting to being massive racists. Otherwise how is anyone harmed by the removal of this statue?
"Where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people"
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
One of the striking things from the BBC programme Who do you think you are ? was just how widespread slavery was. Many of the black celebs expecting to find their ancestors as liberated slaves were shocked when it turned out they were slave owners instead.
Is that in the same manner Jeffersons' descendants were fairly recently dismayed to learn that they had some cousins whose ancestors were slaves ?
One wonders whether it was the fact that they were slaves or that their lily white ancestors had participated in some (likely non consensual) sexual activity with their black ancestors was the more shocking to them.
The Jeffersons were shocked and appalled by the suggestion about their illustrious ancestor, and insisted that he did not have sexual relations with that woman*... Until the DNA evidence.
Off topic but an example of why this government does not know its arse from its elbow:-
1. There are press reports about pubs being allowed to open from 22nd June. 2. For this to happen - apart from the changes in the regulations needed and guidance about HSE - pubs need to:- - Get rid of the old barrels which need to be got rid of in a proper manner. The beer is not just flushed down the drain. - All the lines cleaned and prepared and tested. - Gas canisters ordered for gas-assisted ale and lagers etc. These are usually ordered - at least in rural areas - on a fortnightly basis. - Beer ordered. That assumes that small breweries are actually brewing now. They are not back to work yet so there would be no products for anyone to sell. - The beer settled, racked and prepared, ready for serving. That takes a bare minimum of 6 days - if you want good beer. - Heineken has already announced that its first deliveries will be made in the week beginning 22nd June. Here deliveries will not be before 26 June.
How can pubs possibly order stuff now without knowing whether they will legally or practically be able to open on a date vaguely being canvassed in public by idiot politicians without any practical knowledge of what actually is involved in running a small business? It is absolutely absurd.
Realistically. - because it would take an absolute minimum of 2 weeks - the earliest anything can sensibly open is 4 July.
And how are eating and drinking places supposed to operate without loos? Does no-one in government have any understanding of human physiology?
Daughter is incandescent with fury. No certainty. No clue. No guidance. No ability to plan. The changes to the furlough scheme are unclear and there is a deadline of this Wednesday which will impact on what can be done re staff come July.
And to top it all, there is the fear that this is being rushed through for PR reasons, infections will go up again and they could be shut down again - and with no recourse to insurance. Again. And having lost - again - any money spent on stock.
We have fuckwits in charge. Absolute fuckwits.
Neither I nor daughter are normally ones for violence but if we had Boris or one of his morons in front of us now they would get such a bollocking their ears would be ringing from now until Xmas 2024.
A comment which deserves to be a thread header.
(btw, I have VM'd you.)
You said it!
PS Daughter has just commented: “Oh Mum, now you’re going to ignore me all day while you write it!”
Question - Is there a single British aristocratic family that wasn't tangentially involved in the slave trade ?
There isn’t a single British family that wasn’t at some point in some way involved in slavery.
How many of them have kept the profits from it to the present day is another question.
One of the striking things from the BBC programme Who do you think you are ? was just how widespread slavery was. Many of the black celebs expecting to find their ancestors as liberated slaves were shocked when it turned out they were slave owners instead.
Is that in the same manner Jeffersons' descendants were fairly recently dismayed to learn that they had some cousins whose ancestors were slaves ?
One wonders whether it was the fact that they were slaves or that their lily white ancestors had participated in some (likely non consensual) sexual activity with their black ancestors was the more shocking to these descendants.
Even more interesting was the black activist-type girl who found out that she had a very large portion of white ancestry a couple of generations back. She was very unhappy.
Off topic but an example of why this government does not know its arse from its elbow:-
1. There are press reports about pubs being allowed to open from 22nd June. 2. For this to happen - apart from the changes in the regulations needed and guidance about HSE - pubs need to:- - Get rid of the old barrels which need to be got rid of in a proper manner. The beer is not just flushed down the drain. - All the lines cleaned and prepared and tested. - Gas canisters ordered for gas-assisted ale and lagers etc. These are usually ordered - at least in rural areas - on a fortnightly basis. - Beer ordered. That assumes that small breweries are actually brewing now. They are not back to work yet so there would be no products for anyone to sell. - The beer settled, racked and prepared, ready for serving. That takes a bare minimum of 6 days - if you want good beer. - Heineken has already announced that its first deliveries will be made in the week beginning 22nd June. Here deliveries will not be before 26 June.
How can pubs possibly order stuff now without knowing whether they will legally or practically be able to open on a date vaguely being canvassed in public by idiot politicians without any practical knowledge of what actually is involved in running a small business? It is absolutely absurd.
Realistically. - because it would take an absolute minimum of 2 weeks - the earliest anything can sensibly open is 4 July.
And how are eating and drinking places supposed to operate without loos? Does no-one in government have any understanding of human physiology?
Daughter is incandescent with fury. No certainty. No clue. No guidance. No ability to plan. The changes to the furlough scheme are unclear and there is a deadline of this Wednesday which will impact on what can be done re staff come July.
And to top it all, there is the fear that this is being rushed through for PR reasons, infections will go up again and they could be shut down again - and with no recourse to insurance. Again. And having lost - again - any money spent on stock.
We have fuckwits in charge. Absolute fuckwits.
Neither I nor daughter are normally ones for violence but if we had Boris or one of his morons in front of us now they would get such a bollocking their ears would be ringing from now until Xmas 2024.
I am sorry but I am not sure I am understanding what you think the government is doing wrong. If this comes to pass pubs will have the option of opening. Some will, some won't, depending upon their situation, access to outdoor space etc. No one is obliged to open on 20th June or indeed 4th July but they are free to do so. Of course some businesses will find it difficult to work out if they can actually trade at a profit with the current restrictions and there is uncertainty about what those restrictions are going to be. But these problems will arise however and whenever we come out of lockdown. Being in a business at a time of a pandemic is problematical. Of course there is a risk of a second wave. The government can do nothing about that risk which we all hope doesn't come to pass. Are you really suggesting that the taxpayer should continue to fund these businesses remaining closed indefinitely just in case? There is no magic solution. There is no magic bullet. We need to open up our economy as quickly as we can whilst watching that R number carefully. That is what the government seems to be doing.
Comments
I'm happier to live in that country than one where people have no choice whether they follow the law or not.
He'll complain, but I don't think he'll do anything that would ensure that he goes to prison for a long time, too much of a coward. Unless he's convinced he's going to prison anyway, which is actually quite likely when I think about it. Shit.
Thanks Batman.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/06/07/germans-fear-ecb-following-weimar-reichsbank-inflation-trap2/
Please note I am not supporting this action. I am just saying that it could be justified by the same line of thought.
The boss of UK-based oil giant BP has told staff it plans to cut 10,000 jobs from its global workforce after being hit hard by the coronavirus pandemic.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1269664797148274689
A better example is Wills Memorial Building. The same people outraged by Colston related things are equally outraged by Wills family, who made their money in tobacco (which was obviously picked by slaves).
Apparently failure to win an argument or democratic vote is some sort of justification for criminality.
It's a completely insane idea.
Should the pupils and staff be singled out for intimidation?
Where the arguments were successfully made, change followed. For example, a few years ago a primary school named after Colston renamed itself Cotham Green School with the full support of parents and staff.
We should not be in the situation where what seems to have been a bunch of largely white anarchists decide that because a majority considers them to be wrong about the need to remove a statue they think is racist they are free to smash it up instead to demonstrate their political cred.
I mean, where does that lead? Supposing Corbyn had won the last election, would I have been justified in throwing him in the Thames because I disapprove of anti-semites?
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=oD6D8nwij-0C&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=palmer+rosario+south+seas&source=bl&ots=OqH2buxQhZ&sig=ACfU3U1bnoKovBx7ARELVAQSNF-vSpw5Kw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJlqv9nPLpAhXFoFwKHZYyDBMQ6AEwDXoECBAQAQ#v=onepage&q=palmer rosario south seas&f=false
I tried to get his book republished - it's long out of copyright, of course - with some very beautiful paintings of the South Seas that I've inherited, but was unsuccessful in finding a publisher.
https://twitter.com/TheProleStar/status/1269662752039206917/photo/1
This rather neatly solves the problem of how do we decide which statues can and can't be torn down. There's no need for legal precedent or any official body to make that decision, it's up to the individual juries. And somebody who sees someone escape punishment for tearing down one statue, and who is now contemplating tearing down another statue- say of Churchill, or Thatcher- would have to ask themselves "Would I expect a jury of my peers to find me not guilty?" So no free pass, and no mob rule.
(Another aspect of jury nullification that you mind find appealing is that it's very rarely used, and so it's very unlikely that the people tearing down this statue will actually be found not guilty)
1. There are press reports about pubs being allowed to open from 22nd June.
2. For this to happen - apart from the changes in the regulations needed and guidance about HSE - pubs need to:-
- Get rid of the old barrels which need to be got rid of in a proper manner. The beer is not just flushed down the drain.
- All the lines cleaned and prepared and tested.
- Gas canisters ordered for gas-assisted ale and lagers etc. These are usually ordered - at least in rural areas - on a fortnightly basis.
- Beer ordered. That assumes that small breweries are actually brewing now. They are not back to work yet so there would be no products for anyone to sell.
- The beer settled, racked and prepared, ready for serving. That takes a bare minimum of 6 days - if you want good beer.
- Heineken has already announced that its first deliveries will be made in the week beginning 22nd June. Here deliveries will not be before 26 June.
How can pubs possibly order stuff now without knowing whether they will legally or practically be able to open on a date vaguely being canvassed in public by idiot politicians without any practical knowledge of what actually is involved in running a small business? It is absolutely absurd.
Realistically. - because it would take an absolute minimum of 2 weeks - the earliest anything can sensibly open is 4 July.
And how are eating and drinking places supposed to operate without loos? Does no-one in government have any understanding of human physiology?
Daughter is incandescent with fury. No certainty. No clue. No guidance. No ability to plan. The changes to the furlough scheme are unclear and there is a deadline of this Wednesday which will impact on what can be done re staff come July.
And to top it all, there is the fear that this is being rushed through for PR reasons, infections will go up again and they could be shut down again - and with no recourse to insurance. Again. And having lost - again - any money spent on stock.
We have fuckwits in charge. Absolute fuckwits.
Neither I nor daughter are normally ones for violence but if we had Boris or one of his morons in front of us now they would get such a bollocking their ears would be ringing from now until Xmas 2024.
This, and the widespread flouting of social distancing on the protests and elsewhere, ought to be overshadowing a statue.
But that is a great post.
And I am really sorry for your daughter in this horrible situation.
•It was illegal for women to protest in 1911 seeking the vote
•It was illegal for youths to resist laws making them join Hitler Youth
•It was illegal for Rosa Parks to sit on that seat
•It was illegal for gay men to have sex
•It was illegal to steal Trevalyan’s corn
Anyway, we have this and we were ahead of the game. Sense the queues building for TrumpToast club and we may have to bring in a waiting list.
But still slightly wary of (1) Joe's marbles and (2) Trump cheating.
From Wikipedia...
Up until 1920 only women and girls were employed as cigar-makers. One clause in the women's contract stipulated:
"She shall not contract Matrimony within the said Term, nor play at Card or Dice Tables, or any other unlawful Games."
There were perfectly easy ways to remove the statue legally this is where Philips argument is wrong. Breaking an unjust law that you have no means to change all fine. If you can change it easily by just being elected to the council then you have no leg to stand on. That way lies the tyranny of which side has the bigger thugs.
The difference between Chaotic Good and Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil is that violence against an innocent person isn't morally permitted under Chaotic Good.
So expect to hear a lot about the danger of Democrats stealing the election, to encourage and justify violence on polling day.
It was illegal for the Suffragettes to riot, commit acts of terrorism or seek to murder politicians.
The less often commented point is that it was also extremely counter-productive. For example, Emily Davison's actions seem to have hardened Asquith in particular against the idea of giving women the vote, as his supporters had concluded they couldn't be trusted with it.
They don't want a debate, they want to shame your for your thoughts.
If I can make a small suggestion - thought it is wonderful to have beer on tap, I would do a bottle bar in the immediate term.
I should imagine a similar proportion of pubs to open as kids who are back at school.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/kamala-harris-biden-criminal-justice-reform-304534
Which means they will be paying to put up a statue of a slaver...
Are there not some more socially distanced measures like people being allowed to stay overnight in their OWN caravans and second homes that should come before this ?!
This Tory Party (UKIP-lite) are not the party of business, nor the party of pragmatism - they are a bunch of bombastic half-wits who mistake ignorance for intelligence.
There are a lot of Cyclefree-daughter type people out there. They are easily identifiable by the lumps of hair they pulled out whilst reading Westminster's Edicts.
I recall during the World Cup there was an issue with CO2 shortages that led to some breweries and pubs running out of beer and/or CO2, one local bar nearby had to sell bottled beer in the short term.
If a bar told me they wouldn't have any beer on draught for a few days until it was ready but they had alternative options I'd be happy to support that bar.
Beer Gardens aren't even allowed open yet. Maybe we've misheard the pubs announcement and it'll be outdoor drinking only. That'd seem a more sensible intermediate step.
2/0 up. Not long left.
It is the manner in which it was removed. It was removed illegally and by mob rule.
If there is such a groundswell of opinion to have it removed, then it should be relatively easy to remove through the proper channels.
Like the way we did brexit. Not by injuring policemen. Not by setting EU flags alight, not by violent demonstations. Not by marching on the embassies of Germany or any other European institution.
By the ballot box. Time and time again, until they got the message.
Politics isn't just a snappy spin line. If you win elections off the back of your spin line you actually have to deliver, and that means knowing how things work. I know that BluestBlue will be here to tell us how the polls are still up for the Tories (by the MoE snigger) but that doesn't matter in the real world. Once again these are people's lives being screwed up.
- Anonymous German, 1933.
(btw, I have VM'd you.)
I wonder how many pilots are out of currency and need simulator training?
The statue hasn't been destroyed and can be repaired and put back up. If the majority wants it up they can put it back up. Though we all know they likely won't, which says it all.
Until the DNA evidence.
*Sally Hemings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson–Hemings_controversy
PS Daughter has just commented: “Oh Mum, now you’re going to ignore me all day while you write it!”
Spanish style - 10
my graphs....
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1269970808329437185?s=20
Of course some businesses will find it difficult to work out if they can actually trade at a profit with the current restrictions and there is uncertainty about what those restrictions are going to be. But these problems will arise however and whenever we come out of lockdown.
Being in a business at a time of a pandemic is problematical. Of course there is a risk of a second wave. The government can do nothing about that risk which we all hope doesn't come to pass. Are you really suggesting that the taxpayer should continue to fund these businesses remaining closed indefinitely just in case?
There is no magic solution. There is no magic bullet. We need to open up our economy as quickly as we can whilst watching that R number carefully. That is what the government seems to be doing.