Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Trump down in the WH2024 betting after the Mar-a Lago raid – politicalbetting.com

12357

Comments

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,631
    IshmaelZ said:

    ydoethur said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mortimer said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.

    I can only see one poster losing the argument here. It isn't Sunil, or Sean F
    How bold and resolute of you to snipe from the sidelines rather than embarrassing yourself as badly as they have done. Respect.
    Is this a bit of dark blue on blue action?
    You saying he is a Cambridge man?
    I thought repeating the 'dark' would (a) spoil the rhythm and (b) be superfluous.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,003

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Depends on the felony.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,437
    edited August 12
    I think I am enjoying this Trump story so much I may do damage to my ribs.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
    So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.

    Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.

    How very seventh century.
    In addition to all its other irrelevancies your example involves people endangering themselves. In Sir Salman world he gets plaudits a knighthood a lot of money and millions of pounds worth of police protection and hundreds of other people get dead.

    Lovely bloke. T & P.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Mad country!
    Is there a legal bar, to someone with a criminal conviction serving as HM's Prime Minister?

    "No" being my guess.

    Heck, Lord Archer could become PM tomorrow, then address the nation from his perch in the House of Lords.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    Nigelb said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Depends on the felony.
    How would a felony conviction be a LEGAL bar to Trump being elected to 2nd term?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,631

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Mad country!
    Is there a legal bar, to someone with a criminal conviction serving as HM's Prime Minister?

    "No" being my guess.

    Heck, Lord Archer could become PM tomorrow, then address the nation from his perch in the House of Lords.
    No. If you have served your sentence, and regained the franchise, you can stand for Parliament and thence become PM.

    In practice, the likes of Horatio Bottomley have never recovered from their criminal conviction.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 7,789

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Mad country!
    Is there a legal bar, to someone with a criminal conviction serving as HM's Prime Minister?

    "No" being my guess.

    Heck, Lord Archer could become PM tomorrow, then address the nation from his perch in the House of Lords.
    A twist in the tale worthy of the master storyteller himself.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,631

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Mad country!
    Is there a legal bar, to someone with a criminal conviction serving as HM's Prime Minister?

    "No" being my guess.

    Heck, Lord Archer could become PM tomorrow, then address the nation from his perch in the House of Lords.
    A twist in the tale worthy of the master storyteller himself.
    Possibly. But it wouldn't match some of the drivel Archer comes out with.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437
    ydoethur said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Mad country!
    Is there a legal bar, to someone with a criminal conviction serving as HM's Prime Minister?

    "No" being my guess.

    Heck, Lord Archer could become PM tomorrow, then address the nation from his perch in the House of Lords.
    No. If you have served your sentence, and regained the franchise, you can stand for Parliament and thence become PM.

    In practice, the likes of Horatio Bottomley have never recovered from their criminal conviction.
    Am talking strictly re: LEGAL impediments.

    As for standing for Parliament, one does NOT have to be a member of House of Commons to be PM.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,631

    ydoethur said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Mad country!
    Is there a legal bar, to someone with a criminal conviction serving as HM's Prime Minister?

    "No" being my guess.

    Heck, Lord Archer could become PM tomorrow, then address the nation from his perch in the House of Lords.
    No. If you have served your sentence, and regained the franchise, you can stand for Parliament and thence become PM.

    In practice, the likes of Horatio Bottomley have never recovered from their criminal conviction.
    Am talking strictly re: LEGAL impediments.

    As for standing for Parliament, one does NOT have to be a member of House of Commons to be PM.
    True, but technically members of the Lords are also members of Parliament.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
    So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.

    Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.

    How very seventh century.
    In addition to all its other irrelevancies your example involves people endangering themselves. In Sir Salman world he gets plaudits a knighthood a lot of money and millions of pounds worth of police protection and hundreds of other people get dead.

    Lovely bloke. T & P.
    I don't like Rushdie in the slightest but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Yours, I'm afraid, is the logic of the wife-beater. Claim provocation as an excuse for bad conduct, and blame the victim.
    Please tell me you are just pretending to be this stupid? Who is trying to excuse what bad conduct?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 10,437

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Mad country!
    Is there a legal bar, to someone with a criminal conviction serving as HM's Prime Minister?

    "No" being my guess.

    Heck, Lord Archer could become PM tomorrow, then address the nation from his perch in the House of Lords.
    A twist in the tale worthy of the master storyteller himself.
    Especially IF you're using "story teller" in same sense, as when little kids are admonished to "stop telling stories".
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916
    Nigelb said:

    HYUFD said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    You can still technically run for President even from prison
    Depends why you’re sent there.
    Technically.
    Were he still in office he could be disbarred from Federal office if convicted but he is no longer in office.

    However there is no constitutional bar to someone with criminal charges or convictions under the US constitution running for President
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,108
    It's a bit pathetic, and largely explained by me consulting a bottle of wine on a Friday night, but I've just watched Dunkirk again and it's reduced me to floods of tears. I know I have embarrassed my wife and mother-in-law by so doing, but I think the film sort of represents the country we are. And it makes me proud.

    We are a good people. A very good people. And I am proud - so proud.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    Nigelb said:
    Trumps argument will be he declassified them whilst President. Should be enough to ensure a hung jury.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,597
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Mad country!
    Is there a legal bar, to someone with a criminal conviction serving as HM's Prime Minister?

    "No" being my guess.

    Heck, Lord Archer could become PM tomorrow, then address the nation from his perch in the House of Lords.
    No. If you have served your sentence, and regained the franchise, you can stand for Parliament and thence become PM.

    In practice, the likes of Horatio Bottomley have never recovered from their criminal conviction.
    Am talking strictly re: LEGAL impediments.

    As for standing for Parliament, one does NOT have to be a member of House of Commons to be PM.
    True, but technically members of the Lords are also members of Parliament.
    House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,597

    It's a bit pathetic, and largely explained by me consulting a bottle of wine on a Friday night, but I've just watched Dunkirk again and it's reduced me to floods of tears. I know I have embarrassed my wife and mother-in-law by so doing, but I think the film sort of represents the country we are. And it makes me proud.

    We are a good people. A very good people. And I am proud - so proud.

    I liked it too, but felt sorry for Tom Hardy's character at the end.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,003

    Nigelb said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Depends on the felony.
    How would a felony conviction be a LEGAL bar to Trump being elected to 2nd term?
    When you’re also found guilty under 18 US Code 2071.

    The felony conviction would be under 18 U.S. Code 1924.

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 19,551

    It's a bit pathetic, and largely explained by me consulting a bottle of wine on a Friday night, but I've just watched Dunkirk again and it's reduced me to floods of tears. I know I have embarrassed my wife and mother-in-law by so doing, but I think the film sort of represents the country we are. And it makes me proud.

    We are a good people. A very good people. And I am proud - so proud.

    A bottle? Or 3? ;)
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    It's a bit pathetic, and largely explained by me consulting a bottle of wine on a Friday night, but I've just watched Dunkirk again and it's reduced me to floods of tears. I know I have embarrassed my wife and mother-in-law by so doing, but I think the film sort of represents the country we are. And it makes me proud.

    We are a good people. A very good people. And I am proud - so proud.

    2.1 million west Africans would agree. Or the 80% of them who made it all the way across anyway.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,631

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Mad country!
    Is there a legal bar, to someone with a criminal conviction serving as HM's Prime Minister?

    "No" being my guess.

    Heck, Lord Archer could become PM tomorrow, then address the nation from his perch in the House of Lords.
    No. If you have served your sentence, and regained the franchise, you can stand for Parliament and thence become PM.

    In practice, the likes of Horatio Bottomley have never recovered from their criminal conviction.
    Am talking strictly re: LEGAL impediments.

    As for standing for Parliament, one does NOT have to be a member of House of Commons to be PM.
    True, but technically members of the Lords are also members of Parliament.
    House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!
    I apologise unreservedly to all posters for setting him off.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,938
    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
    So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.

    Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.

    How very seventh century.
    In addition to all its other irrelevancies your example involves people endangering themselves. In Sir Salman world he gets plaudits a knighthood a lot of money and millions of pounds worth of police protection and hundreds of other people get dead.

    Lovely bloke. T & P.
    I don't like Rushdie in the slightest but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Yours, I'm afraid, is the logic of the wife-beater. Claim provocation as an excuse for bad conduct, and blame the victim.
    Please tell me you are just pretending to be this stupid? Who is trying to excuse what bad conduct?
    You are.

    But then, you are the village idiot of Political Betting.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,551
    Trump released the documents to Breitbart without redactions related to the agents who conducted the search . He’s now effectively put those agents in danger . He really is a stain on humanity ,utterly loathsome . I would book a mariachi band and throw a party if the piece of excretement dropped dead .
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,437

    It's a bit pathetic, and largely explained by me consulting a bottle of wine on a Friday night, but I've just watched Dunkirk again and it's reduced me to floods of tears. I know I have embarrassed my wife and mother-in-law by so doing, but I think the film sort of represents the country we are. And it makes me proud.

    We are a good people. A very good people. And I am proud - so proud.

    I prefer the sequels to Dunkirk, The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan.

    Dunkirk was a failure only ever outdown by the fall of Singapore.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,476
    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    No, the same principle applies in fact to some degree.

    Certainly England excluding London is strongly Tory.

    I really think you're stretching it a bit with that comment - rural and suburban England is generally Conservative as is much of the north and east but urban England especially the larger towns and cities is overwhelmingly Labour.

    Cities like Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool have elected Conservative MPs in the past - do they any longer?
    I don't think cities count in HY's narrative.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
    So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.

    Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.

    How very seventh century.
    In addition to all its other irrelevancies your example involves people endangering themselves. In Sir Salman world he gets plaudits a knighthood a lot of money and millions of pounds worth of police protection and hundreds of other people get dead.

    Lovely bloke. T & P.
    I don't like Rushdie in the slightest but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Yours, I'm afraid, is the logic of the wife-beater. Claim provocation as an excuse for bad conduct, and blame the victim.
    Please tell me you are just pretending to be this stupid? Who is trying to excuse what bad conduct?
    You are.

    But then, you are the village idiot of Political Betting.
    Killer post.

    What bad conduct on whose part do you moronically think I am excusing?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,437
    What a [moderated]

    Rail union baron Mick Lynch has suggested that Ukrainians “playing with Nazi imagery” and the influence of the EU provoked “trouble” in the invaded country.

    Asked about Russian aggression, the general secretary of the RMT appeared to partly place the blame on the EU and “corrupt politicians in Ukraine”.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/12/mick-lynch-ukrainians-playing-nazi-imagery-provoked-russian/
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,920
    Calvine UFO photo from 1990 has leaked online only months after the MoD extended its classified status until 2076. Sources by Sheffield Hallam Uni.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 36,642

    It's a bit pathetic, and largely explained by me consulting a bottle of wine on a Friday night, but I've just watched Dunkirk again and it's reduced me to floods of tears. I know I have embarrassed my wife and mother-in-law by so doing, but I think the film sort of represents the country we are. And it makes me proud.

    We are a good people. A very good people. And I am proud - so proud.

    Was it Harry Styles who tipped you over?

    Actually Dunkirk is fantastic or rather the soundtrack is. It is likely what brought on the tears. It induces a persistent, pervasive feeling of dread it continues throughout the film and richly deserved its Oscar
  • IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
    So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.

    Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.

    How very seventh century.
    In addition to all its other irrelevancies your example involves people endangering themselves. In Sir Salman world he gets plaudits a knighthood a lot of money and millions of pounds worth of police protection and hundreds of other people get dead.

    Lovely bloke. T & P.
    I don't like Rushdie in the slightest but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Yours, I'm afraid, is the logic of the wife-beater. Claim provocation as an excuse for bad conduct, and blame the victim.
    Please tell me you are just pretending to be this stupid? Who is trying to excuse what bad conduct?
    You are.

    But then, you are the village idiot of Political Betting.
    Killer post.

    What bad conduct on whose part do you moronically think I am excusing?
    How about "others getting dead" you seem to be excusing on "Sir Salman world" in your "lovely bloke" post.

    Rushdie isn't responsible for getting a single person killed. If evil people are killing, justified by an evil version of a religion, then they're the ones responsible not an author.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,437
    I'm glad my ex wife never saw this or it might have given her inspiration.


  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,112

    I'm glad my ex wife never saw this or it might have given her inspiration.

    Why would your ex wife want to buy a full page ad in an Australian newspaper?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
    So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.

    Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.

    How very seventh century.
    In addition to all its other irrelevancies your example involves people endangering themselves. In Sir Salman world he gets plaudits a knighthood a lot of money and millions of pounds worth of police protection and hundreds of other people get dead.

    Lovely bloke. T & P.
    I don't like Rushdie in the slightest but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Yours, I'm afraid, is the logic of the wife-beater. Claim provocation as an excuse for bad conduct, and blame the victim.
    Please tell me you are just pretending to be this stupid? Who is trying to excuse what bad conduct?
    You are.

    But then, you are the village idiot of Political Betting.
    Killer post.

    What bad conduct on whose part do you moronically think I am excusing?
    How about "others getting dead" you seem to be excusing on "Sir Salman world" in your "lovely bloke" post.

    Rushdie isn't responsible for getting a single person killed. If evil people are killing, justified by an evil version of a religion, then they're the ones responsible not an author.
    Is the concept of partial, shared responsibility just too difficult for you?

    And secondly the question was not Am I apportioning blame, which I am, but am I excusing conduct? Am I and if so whose?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 104,437
    Somebody asked me if I was writing headlines for the Telegraph these days?

    It’s easy to see why Liz is thrashing Rishi

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/12/easy-see-why-liz-thrashing-rishi/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 55,032
    nico679 said:

    Trump released the documents to Breitbart without redactions related to the agents who conducted the search . He’s now effectively put those agents in danger . He really is a stain on humanity ,utterly loathsome . I would book a mariachi band and throw a party if the piece of excretement dropped dead .

    No matter how much you dislike someone wishing them dead is dreadful and not a good look
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,660
    Nigelb said:
    Miscellaneous Top Secret documents is just the best entry.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 48,108

    It's a bit pathetic, and largely explained by me consulting a bottle of wine on a Friday night, but I've just watched Dunkirk again and it's reduced me to floods of tears. I know I have embarrassed my wife and mother-in-law by so doing, but I think the film sort of represents the country we are. And it makes me proud.

    We are a good people. A very good people. And I am proud - so proud.

    I prefer the sequels to Dunkirk, The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan.

    Dunkirk was a failure only ever outdown by the fall of Singapore.
    Don't talk to me about the fall of Singapore.

    An utter humiliation I still can't get my head around.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,003
    Not a bad report on the legal arguments which might ensue were the authorities to prosecute Trump.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-allies-say-declassified-mar-lago-documents-experts-say-unclear-w-rcna42311
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,476

    What a [moderated]

    Rail union baron Mick Lynch has suggested that Ukrainians “playing with Nazi imagery” and the influence of the EU provoked “trouble” in the invaded country.

    Asked about Russian aggression, the general secretary of the RMT appeared to partly place the blame on the EU and “corrupt politicians in Ukraine”.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/12/mick-lynch-ukrainians-playing-nazi-imagery-provoked-russian/

    Being critical of the EU might get him a column in the Telegraph. He might have to tone down the anti- Ukraine narrative for a while though.
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
    So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.

    Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.

    How very seventh century.
    In addition to all its other irrelevancies your example involves people endangering themselves. In Sir Salman world he gets plaudits a knighthood a lot of money and millions of pounds worth of police protection and hundreds of other people get dead.

    Lovely bloke. T & P.
    I don't like Rushdie in the slightest but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Yours, I'm afraid, is the logic of the wife-beater. Claim provocation as an excuse for bad conduct, and blame the victim.
    Please tell me you are just pretending to be this stupid? Who is trying to excuse what bad conduct?
    You are.

    But then, you are the village idiot of Political Betting.
    Killer post.

    What bad conduct on whose part do you moronically think I am excusing?
    How about "others getting dead" you seem to be excusing on "Sir Salman world" in your "lovely bloke" post.

    Rushdie isn't responsible for getting a single person killed. If evil people are killing, justified by an evil version of a religion, then they're the ones responsible not an author.
    Is the concept of partial, shared responsibility just too difficult for you?

    And secondly the question was not Am I apportioning blame, which I am, but am I excusing conduct? Am I and if so whose?
    No its not too difficult, the concept of ethics seems to be too difficult for you.

    There will be a lot of partial or shared responsibility to go around including not just for the assailant but for the Ayatollahs, Imams and plenty of others.

    Not on the list of people who have to share responsibility: Rushdie.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,241

    What a [moderated]

    Rail union baron Mick Lynch has suggested that Ukrainians “playing with Nazi imagery” and the influence of the EU provoked “trouble” in the invaded country.

    Asked about Russian aggression, the general secretary of the RMT appeared to partly place the blame on the EU and “corrupt politicians in Ukraine”.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/12/mick-lynch-ukrainians-playing-nazi-imagery-provoked-russian/

    Can't help themselves sometimes. Imperfect country though Ukraine might have been what f*ck does that have to do with invasion?

    Remarkable what sins people will argue provocation covers though.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    edited August 12

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
    So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.

    Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.

    How very seventh century.
    In addition to all its other irrelevancies your example involves people endangering themselves. In Sir Salman world he gets plaudits a knighthood a lot of money and millions of pounds worth of police protection and hundreds of other people get dead.

    Lovely bloke. T & P.
    I don't like Rushdie in the slightest but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Yours, I'm afraid, is the logic of the wife-beater. Claim provocation as an excuse for bad conduct, and blame the victim.
    Please tell me you are just pretending to be this stupid? Who is trying to excuse what bad conduct?
    You are.

    But then, you are the village idiot of Political Betting.
    Killer post.

    What bad conduct on whose part do you moronically think I am excusing?
    How about "others getting dead" you seem to be excusing on "Sir Salman world" in your "lovely bloke" post.

    Rushdie isn't responsible for getting a single person killed. If evil people are killing, justified by an evil version of a religion, then they're the ones responsible not an author.
    Is the concept of partial, shared responsibility just too difficult for you?

    And secondly the question was not Am I apportioning blame, which I am, but am I excusing conduct? Am I and if so whose?
    No its not too difficult, the concept of ethics seems to be too difficult for you.

    There will be a lot of partial or shared responsibility to go around including not just for the assailant but for the Ayatollahs, Imams and plenty of others.

    Not on the list of people who have to share responsibility: Rushdie.
    Idiot. I am not talking about the attack on Rushdie, I am talking about the hundreds already dead in his You get massacred, I get a knighthood deal. An outcome reasonably foreseeable to him when he published the book. Those people count ethically to me if not to you.

    Mad Max 2 is just embarrassing. Amazing how film making has advanced.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,916

    stodge said:

    HYUFD said:


    No, the same principle applies in fact to some degree.

    Certainly England excluding London is strongly Tory.

    I really think you're stretching it a bit with that comment - rural and suburban England is generally Conservative as is much of the north and east but urban England especially the larger towns and cities is overwhelmingly Labour.

    Cities like Leeds, Sheffield, Manchester, Newcastle and Liverpool have elected Conservative MPs in the past - do they any longer?
    I don't think cities count in HY's narrative.
    In 2019 Labour's strongest region in the entire UK was London, the Tories got a higher voteshare in the North than the capital
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 42,597
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
    So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.

    Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.

    How very seventh century.
    In addition to all its other irrelevancies your example involves people endangering themselves. In Sir Salman world he gets plaudits a knighthood a lot of money and millions of pounds worth of police protection and hundreds of other people get dead.

    Lovely bloke. T & P.
    I don't like Rushdie in the slightest but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Yours, I'm afraid, is the logic of the wife-beater. Claim provocation as an excuse for bad conduct, and blame the victim.
    Please tell me you are just pretending to be this stupid? Who is trying to excuse what bad conduct?
    You are.

    But then, you are the village idiot of Political Betting.
    Killer post.

    What bad conduct on whose part do you moronically think I am excusing?
    How about "others getting dead" you seem to be excusing on "Sir Salman world" in your "lovely bloke" post.

    Rushdie isn't responsible for getting a single person killed. If evil people are killing, justified by an evil version of a religion, then they're the ones responsible not an author.
    Is the concept of partial, shared responsibility just too difficult for you?

    And secondly the question was not Am I apportioning blame, which I am, but am I excusing conduct? Am I and if so whose?
    No its not too difficult, the concept of ethics seems to be too difficult for you.

    There will be a lot of partial or shared responsibility to go around including not just for the assailant but for the Ayatollahs, Imams and plenty of others.

    Not on the list of people who have to share responsibility: Rushdie.
    Idiot. I am not talking about Rushdie, I am talking about the hundreds already dead in his You get massacred, I get a knighthood deal. An outcome reasonably foreseeable to him when he published the book. Those people count ethically to me if not to you.

    Mad Max 2 is just embarrassing. Amazing how film making has advanced.
    You seem to have a corncob up your ass.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 2,551

    nico679 said:

    Trump released the documents to Breitbart without redactions related to the agents who conducted the search . He’s now effectively put those agents in danger . He really is a stain on humanity ,utterly loathsome . I would book a mariachi band and throw a party if the piece of excretement dropped dead .

    No matter how much you dislike someone wishing them dead is dreadful and not a good look
    I’m only saying what many people think . There are other leaders across the world who are evil and also whose deaths would be celebrated by many .
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Rushdie news not great. Assailant fits the bill

    Stabbed "multiple times" - apparently. Who knows

    Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
    Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.

    Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
    You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.

    You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
    I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.

    This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
    It's also a strange theory, that extremism can be controlled by controlling immigration.
    Why? Countries with zero Muslim immigrants suffer zero Muslim terrorism. Or racist pedophile Muslim gangrape. See Japan
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,002
    👍 Watford top of the league! 👍
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
    So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.

    Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.

    How very seventh century.
    In addition to all its other irrelevancies your example involves people endangering themselves. In Sir Salman world he gets plaudits a knighthood a lot of money and millions of pounds worth of police protection and hundreds of other people get dead.

    Lovely bloke. T & P.
    I don't like Rushdie in the slightest but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Yours, I'm afraid, is the logic of the wife-beater. Claim provocation as an excuse for bad conduct, and blame the victim.
    Please tell me you are just pretending to be this stupid? Who is trying to excuse what bad conduct?
    You are.

    But then, you are the village idiot of Political Betting.
    Killer post.

    What bad conduct on whose part do you moronically think I am excusing?
    How about "others getting dead" you seem to be excusing on "Sir Salman world" in your "lovely bloke" post.

    Rushdie isn't responsible for getting a single person killed. If evil people are killing, justified by an evil version of a religion, then they're the ones responsible not an author.
    Is the concept of partial, shared responsibility just too difficult for you?

    And secondly the question was not Am I apportioning blame, which I am, but am I excusing conduct? Am I and if so whose?
    No its not too difficult, the concept of ethics seems to be too difficult for you.

    There will be a lot of partial or shared responsibility to go around including not just for the assailant but for the Ayatollahs, Imams and plenty of others.

    Not on the list of people who have to share responsibility: Rushdie.
    Idiot. I am not talking about Rushdie, I am talking about the hundreds already dead in his You get massacred, I get a knighthood deal. An outcome reasonably foreseeable to him when he published the book. Those people count ethically to me if not to you.

    Mad Max 2 is just embarrassing. Amazing how film making has advanced.
    You seem to have a corncob up your ass.
    No, it’s directly comparable with Fury Road and the difference is incalculable
  • IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
    So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.

    Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.

    How very seventh century.
    In addition to all its other irrelevancies your example involves people endangering themselves. In Sir Salman world he gets plaudits a knighthood a lot of money and millions of pounds worth of police protection and hundreds of other people get dead.

    Lovely bloke. T & P.
    I don't like Rushdie in the slightest but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Yours, I'm afraid, is the logic of the wife-beater. Claim provocation as an excuse for bad conduct, and blame the victim.
    Please tell me you are just pretending to be this stupid? Who is trying to excuse what bad conduct?
    You are.

    But then, you are the village idiot of Political Betting.
    Killer post.

    What bad conduct on whose part do you moronically think I am excusing?
    How about "others getting dead" you seem to be excusing on "Sir Salman world" in your "lovely bloke" post.

    Rushdie isn't responsible for getting a single person killed. If evil people are killing, justified by an evil version of a religion, then they're the ones responsible not an author.
    Is the concept of partial, shared responsibility just too difficult for you?

    And secondly the question was not Am I apportioning blame, which I am, but am I excusing conduct? Am I and if so whose?
    No its not too difficult, the concept of ethics seems to be too difficult for you.

    There will be a lot of partial or shared responsibility to go around including not just for the assailant but for the Ayatollahs, Imams and plenty of others.

    Not on the list of people who have to share responsibility: Rushdie.
    Idiot. I am not talking about Rushdie, I am talking about the hundreds already dead in his You get massacred, I get a knighthood deal. An outcome reasonably foreseeable to him when he published the book. Those people count ethically to me if not to you.

    Mad Max 2 is just embarrassing. Amazing how film making has advanced.
    Rushdie isn't responsible for anyone at all being murdered, let alone "hundreds".
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,241
    Nigelb said:

    Not a bad report on the legal arguments which might ensue were the authorities to prosecute Trump.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-allies-say-declassified-mar-lago-documents-experts-say-unclear-w-rcna42311

    Classic example in there of the view that the President should have unfettered ability to make decisions on sensitive matters and not even have to tell anyone, no formal process required at all.

    Checks and balances, and limitations on executive power, is so 18th century, they definitely wanted a President to be able to rule by fiat whenever they want I am sure.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    Nigelb said:

    Not a bad report on the legal arguments which might ensue were the authorities to prosecute Trump.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-allies-say-declassified-mar-lago-documents-experts-say-unclear-w-rcna42311

    This won't result in any conviction.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,241
    nico679 said:

    nico679 said:

    Trump released the documents to Breitbart without redactions related to the agents who conducted the search . He’s now effectively put those agents in danger . He really is a stain on humanity ,utterly loathsome . I would book a mariachi band and throw a party if the piece of excretement dropped dead .

    No matter how much you dislike someone wishing them dead is dreadful and not a good look
    I’m only saying what many people think . There are other leaders across the world who are evil and also whose deaths would be celebrated by many .
    It may not be a good look but if we are honest many would celebrate the deaths of, say, Putin or Kim Jong Un. Fewer would do the same with Trump, but it would not be zero.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Sean_F said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    kle4 said:

    Anyway, much as I'd like to spend more time arguing that murderers alone are responsible for their own acitons, not a dude who penned a story which upset some people, a story they almost certainly never even read a precis of, I must be off. Enjoy another sweltering evening.

    Twit. I can't believe that there are people too dim to understand the axeman point.
    Twat. I can't believe that there are people too thick to understand that people are in control of their OWN actions.
    OK

    Answer the question.

    Do you have any criticism at all of the guy who tells the axeman where the wife is? Any criticism at all?
    If I were to pen a PB thread entitled "IshmaelZ is GAY!", would you have a right to chop my head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    You are missing the point and losing the argument. To make your analogy relevant, if you knew that I was so unbalanced that I would respond by chopping someone's head off, and you could safely assume that it wouldn't be yours, and if in fact I went round and chopped my neighbour's head off, you would be partly to blame. Not as much as me but you would not be innocent.
    OK, let's make it relevant to today's events:

    If Rushdie were to pen a novel entitled "The Satanic Verses", would a religious nutter have a right to chop his head off with an axe? Yes or no?
    No, but that is in no way relevant to the argument.
    Entirely relevant to events in upstate New York today, I'm afraid.
    But irrelevant to the argument. We are getting somewhere.
    If I tell a mad axeman where to find the wife that he wants to kill, I am abetting a crime.

    If I say or publish something, which is entirely lawful, that someone else finds so offensive that they decide they wish to kill me over it, I'm not.

    The difference is clear and obvious.
    No it is not. FFS get the incredibly straightforward facts right: if you know that someone is going to find what you say offensive enough to kill someone other than you, you are procuring that person's death.
    So, if for example, a Muslim woman has an affair outside marriage, and she and offending man are put to death by their respective families, you would argue that they are in some measure, responsible for their own murders. After all, it is widely known that extra-marital sex is considered very offensive to some Muslims, so offensive that it must be punished by death.

    Or if say, a woman were raped while wearing scanty clothing, you would be saying that she had in some way, brought that fate on herself.

    How very seventh century.
    In addition to all its other irrelevancies your example involves people endangering themselves. In Sir Salman world he gets plaudits a knighthood a lot of money and millions of pounds worth of police protection and hundreds of other people get dead.

    Lovely bloke. T & P.
    I don't like Rushdie in the slightest but that's irrelevant to the matter at hand.

    Yours, I'm afraid, is the logic of the wife-beater. Claim provocation as an excuse for bad conduct, and blame the victim.
    Please tell me you are just pretending to be this stupid? Who is trying to excuse what bad conduct?
    You are.

    But then, you are the village idiot of Political Betting.
    Killer post.

    What bad conduct on whose part do you moronically think I am excusing?
    How about "others getting dead" you seem to be excusing on "Sir Salman world" in your "lovely bloke" post.

    Rushdie isn't responsible for getting a single person killed. If evil people are killing, justified by an evil version of a religion, then they're the ones responsible not an author.
    Is the concept of partial, shared responsibility just too difficult for you?

    And secondly the question was not Am I apportioning blame, which I am, but am I excusing conduct? Am I and if so whose?
    No its not too difficult, the concept of ethics seems to be too difficult for you.

    There will be a lot of partial or shared responsibility to go around including not just for the assailant but for the Ayatollahs, Imams and plenty of others.

    Not on the list of people who have to share responsibility: Rushdie.
    Idiot. I am not talking about Rushdie, I am talking about the hundreds already dead in his You get massacred, I get a knighthood deal. An outcome reasonably foreseeable to him when he published the book. Those people count ethically to me if not to you.

    Mad Max 2 is just embarrassing. Amazing how film making has advanced.
    Rushdie isn't responsible for anyone at all being murdered, let alone "hundreds".
    Of course not.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,241
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Rushdie news not great. Assailant fits the bill

    Stabbed "multiple times" - apparently. Who knows

    Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
    Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.

    Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
    You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.

    You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
    I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.

    This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
    It's also a strange theory, that extremism can be controlled by controlling immigration.
    Why? Countries with zero Muslim immigrants suffer zero Muslim terrorism. Or racist pedophile Muslim gangrape. See Japan
    We have lots of muslims already here, millions, zero immigration from anywhere would not change that and I'd hope we'd all agree any problem of internal extremism would not best be served by deporting 3 million citizens.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,241

    Somebody asked me if I was writing headlines for the Telegraph these days?

    It’s easy to see why Liz is thrashing Rishi

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/08/12/easy-see-why-liz-thrashing-rishi/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

    Ultimately Rishi appears to have been a lightweight. He got the big job because his boss quit on a point of integrity, and he's slick, but at this first real challenge he seems to have wilted.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,453

    👍 Watford top of the league! 👍

    Our lad Hamza Choudury have good game? Talented lad, if a bit psycho at times. Attackers fear him, and rightly so.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    moonshine said:

    Calvine UFO photo from 1990 has leaked online only months after the MoD extended its classified status until 2076. Sources by Sheffield Hallam Uni.

    Why has it leaked now? Do you think?

    This does feel like a slow Disclosure. but of course a Disclosure could be faked by bad actors for many reasons

    Fascinating
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,003
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Not a bad report on the legal arguments which might ensue were the authorities to prosecute Trump.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-allies-say-declassified-mar-lago-documents-experts-say-unclear-w-rcna42311

    Classic example in there of the view that the President should have unfettered ability to make decisions on sensitive matters and not even have to tell anyone, no formal process required at all.

    Checks and balances, and limitations on executive power, is so 18th century, they definitely wanted a President to be able to rule by fiat whenever they want I am sure.
    Such an assertion is, of course, absurd on its face.
    It would allow any ex President to claim, years after leaving office, that all US records in existence up until the end of his term are all of a sudden declassified.
    Because he decided so a decade ago, and just waited a while to tell anyone.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,145
    edited August 12
    Tomorrow it'll be 12°C in Reykjavik.

    I wonder how difficult it is to learn Icelandic?

    EDIT: this, of course, is hyperbole. There's no necessity to depart to the Arctic Circle to seek refuge from this endless, baking hot, shit Summer. Kirkwall (16°C) would be quite sufficient.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 21,493

    👍 Watford top of the league! 👍

    Old mate of mine flew home from Spain to watch Burnley in that game. Ah well...
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 18,476
    The Sun has busted Starmer. He's on holiday in Majorca whilst the country on his watch goes to the dogs.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Rushdie news not great. Assailant fits the bill

    Stabbed "multiple times" - apparently. Who knows

    Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
    Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.

    Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
    You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.

    You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
    I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.

    This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
    It's also a strange theory, that extremism can be controlled by controlling immigration.
    Why? Countries with zero Muslim immigrants suffer zero Muslim terrorism. Or racist pedophile Muslim gangrape. See Japan
    We have lots of muslims already here, millions, zero immigration from anywhere would not change that and I'd hope we'd all agree any problem of internal extremism would not best be served by deporting 3 million citizens.
    Point me to the bit of my post where I even mentioned "deportation". Or go to the w3w square ///stupid.strawman,bollocks
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 2,002
    Foxy said:

    👍 Watford top of the league! 👍

    Our lad Hamza Choudury have good game? Talented lad, if a bit psycho at times. Attackers fear him, and rightly so.
    Yes he did from what I saw. I only saw the later stages. He looks like a good signing, we needed to strengthen the defence
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Not a bad report on the legal arguments which might ensue were the authorities to prosecute Trump.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-allies-say-declassified-mar-lago-documents-experts-say-unclear-w-rcna42311

    Classic example in there of the view that the President should have unfettered ability to make decisions on sensitive matters and not even have to tell anyone, no formal process required at all.

    Checks and balances, and limitations on executive power, is so 18th century, they definitely wanted a President to be able to rule by fiat whenever they want I am sure.
    Such an assertion is, of course, absurd on its face.
    It would allow any ex President to claim, years after leaving office, that all US records in existence up until the end of his term are all of a sudden declassified.
    Because he decided so a decade ago, and just waited a while to tell anyone.
    He will surely be able to produce witnesses to testify he said it was declassified whilst President. He would need to convince only one or two jurors.

    The Republican party should, of course, use this as an opportunity to get rid, but they are too frit and cucked to even try.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,241
    pigeon said:

    Tomorrow it'll be 12°C in Reykjavik.

    I wonder how difficult it is to learn Icelandic?

    EDIT: this, of course, is hyperbole. There's no necessity to depart to the Arctic Circle to seek refuge from this endless, baking hot, shit Summer. Kirkwall (16°C) would be quite sufficient.

    Don't worry, pretty much every Icelander will speak English anyway I am sure.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    What even is that UFO photo?

    I've looked at this case and my suspicion is that most people in the story are telling the truth - as they see it. ie this is a real photo of something genuinely odd in the Scottish sky. It's not "a reflection in a loch" or a "kite"

    But WTF it is, I have no idea. Black tech?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,003
    Interesting if this is the case.

    https://twitter.com/OstapYarysh/status/1558139446528249858
    A senior US military official: We haven't provided #Ukraine anything that would enable them to strike into Crimea. ... But other than that, this is a Ukrainian war. So they're the ones that select the target.

    Whatever they used was pretty accurate.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,830
    pigeon said:

    Tomorrow it'll be 12°C in Reykjavik.

    I wonder how difficult it is to learn Icelandic?

    EDIT: this, of course, is hyperbole. There's no necessity to depart to the Arctic Circle to seek refuge from this endless, baking hot, shit Summer. Kirkwall (16°C) would be quite sufficient.

    Mjög auðvelt, ég var altalandi á tveimur vikum.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 8,323
    edited August 12

    It's a bit pathetic, and largely explained by me consulting a bottle of wine on a Friday night, but I've just watched Dunkirk again and it's reduced me to floods of tears. I know I have embarrassed my wife and mother-in-law by so doing, but I think the film sort of represents the country we are. And it makes me proud.

    We are a good people. A very good people. And I am proud - so proud.

    I prefer the sequels to Dunkirk, The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan.

    Dunkirk was a failure only ever outdown by the fall of Singapore.
    Don't talk to me about the fall of Singapore.

    An utter humiliation I still can't get my head
    around.
    I still can’t get over losing Calais. And what, oh what, was Harold playing at at Hastings? Furthermore, we still haven’t had that long promised enquiry about the fall of Mercia to the Danes.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 35,453
    edited August 12

    Foxy said:

    👍 Watford top of the league! 👍

    Our lad Hamza Choudury have good game? Talented lad, if a bit psycho at times. Attackers fear him, and rightly so.
    Yes he did from what I saw. I only saw the later stages. He looks like a good signing, we needed to strengthen the defence
    He has had some decent games In the prem, but Rogers doesn't seem to like him, played mostly in midfield but also as a centre back too when we were short last year. His attention can wander but at his best he is a fantastic tackler, at his worst he breaks other players legs.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,812
    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Not a bad report on the legal arguments which might ensue were the authorities to prosecute Trump.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-allies-say-declassified-mar-lago-documents-experts-say-unclear-w-rcna42311

    Classic example in there of the view that the President should have unfettered ability to make decisions on sensitive matters and not even have to tell anyone, no formal process required at all.

    Checks and balances, and limitations on executive power, is so 18th century, they definitely wanted a President to be able to rule by fiat whenever they want I am sure.
    If they're declassified, then anyone can ask to see them under the Freedom of Information Act, perhaps? For instance, the President of France might be curious...
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,238
    edited August 12
    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:
    Miscellaneous Top Secret documents is just the best entry.
    4 of them.

    And:

    Info re President of France
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,241
    edited August 12
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Rushdie news not great. Assailant fits the bill

    Stabbed "multiple times" - apparently. Who knows

    Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
    Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.

    Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
    You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.

    You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
    I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.

    This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
    It's also a strange theory, that extremism can be controlled by controlling immigration.
    Why? Countries with zero Muslim immigrants suffer zero Muslim terrorism. Or racist pedophile Muslim gangrape. See Japan
    We have lots of muslims already here, millions, zero immigration from anywhere would not change that and I'd hope we'd all agree any problem of internal extremism would not best be served by deporting 3 million citizens.
    Point me to the bit of my post where I even mentioned "deportation". Or go to the w3w square ///stupid.strawman,bollocks
    Point me to the bit of my post where I claimed you mentioned deportation.

    I didn't, in fact the point was no one had, so calm the heck down.

    You made a comparison with Japan, which google claims has a couple hundred thousand muslims, so assuming a small proportion are extremists halting all immigration might well have an effect in halting extremism growth. All I did was point out that is not the case here because there are millions, and no one has proposed anything to reduce that number, nor should they. Accordingly it is incredibly dumb to think halting immigration from anywhere would, in itself, eliminate muslim terrorism or gangs in this country, because many examples of both have been from people who are not immigrants.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    Haha fucking hell, fox news have broadcast a doctored image of the search warrant judge in a private jet with Ghislaine Maxwell.

    No lawyer but I imagine that is quite a silly thing to do.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,238
    One of the top secret sets was marked “Various classified/TS/SCI documents,” which is the abbreviation for “top secret/sensitive compartmented information,” a special category meant to protect the nation’s most important secrets — which if revealed publicly would harm US interests

    https://nypost.com/2022/08/12/fbi-seized-11-sets-of-classified-documents-in-trump-mar-a-lago-raid/
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    Eabhal said:

    Haha fucking hell, fox news have broadcast a doctored image of the search warrant judge in a private jet with Ghislaine Maxwell.

    No lawyer but I imagine that is quite a silly thing to do.

    For entertainment purposes only.....no rational viewer is supposed to believe it.....blah blah blah, seems to work for them.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,241
    DougSeal said:

    It's a bit pathetic, and largely explained by me consulting a bottle of wine on a Friday night, but I've just watched Dunkirk again and it's reduced me to floods of tears. I know I have embarrassed my wife and mother-in-law by so doing, but I think the film sort of represents the country we are. And it makes me proud.

    We are a good people. A very good people. And I am proud - so proud.

    I prefer the sequels to Dunkirk, The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan.

    Dunkirk was a failure only ever outdown by the fall of Singapore.
    Don't talk to me about the fall of Singapore.

    An utter humiliation I still can't get my head
    around.
    I still can’t get over losing Calais. And what, oh what, was Harold playing at at Hastings? Furthermore, we still haven’t had that long promised enquiry about the fall of Mercia to the Danes.
    The Welsh may have something to say about the loss of, well, everything beyond the celtic fringe as well.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,811
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Rushdie news not great. Assailant fits the bill

    Stabbed "multiple times" - apparently. Who knows

    Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
    Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.

    Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
    You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.

    You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
    I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.

    This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
    It's also a strange theory, that extremism can be controlled by controlling immigration.
    Why? Countries with zero Muslim immigrants suffer zero Muslim terrorism. Or racist pedophile Muslim gangrape. See Japan
    We have lots of muslims already here, millions, zero immigration from anywhere would not change that and I'd hope we'd all agree any problem of internal extremism would not best be served by deporting 3 million citizens.
    Point me to the bit of my post where I even mentioned "deportation". Or go to the w3w square ///stupid.strawman,bollocks
    Point me to the bit of my post where I claimed you mentioned deportation.

    I didn't, in fact the point was no one had, so calm the heck down.

    You made a comparison with Japan, which google claims has a couple hundred thousand muslims, so assuming a small proportion are extremists halting all immigration might well have an effect in halting extremism growth. All I did was point out that is not the case here because there are millions, and no one has proposed anything to reduce that number, nor should they. Accordingly it is incredibly dumb to think halting immigration from anywhere would, in itself, eliminate muslim terrorism or gangs in this country, because many examples of both have been from people who are not immigrants.
    The Japanese translator of The Satanic Verses was murdered in Tokyo
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 17,631

    Alistair said:

    Nigelb said:
    Miscellaneous Top Secret documents is just the best entry.
    4 of them.

    And:

    Info re President of France
    To paraphrase Paul Weller:

    His leg measurement and the size of his cock.

    (Anyone know the song?)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,241

    One of the top secret sets was marked “Various classified/TS/SCI documents,” which is the abbreviation for “top secret/sensitive compartmented information,” a special category meant to protect the nation’s most important secrets — which if revealed publicly would harm US interests

    https://nypost.com/2022/08/12/fbi-seized-11-sets-of-classified-documents-in-trump-mar-a-lago-raid/

    Why would he even want any of this stuff?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,003
    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Rushdie news not great. Assailant fits the bill

    Stabbed "multiple times" - apparently. Who knows

    Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
    Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.

    Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
    You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.

    You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
    I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.

    This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
    It's also a strange theory, that extremism can be controlled by controlling immigration.
    Why? Countries with zero Muslim immigrants suffer zero Muslim terrorism. Or racist pedophile Muslim gangrape. See Japan
    But not zero terrorism - as recent events in Japan make pretty obvious.
    Silly argument.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 11,238
    kle4 said:

    One of the top secret sets was marked “Various classified/TS/SCI documents,” which is the abbreviation for “top secret/sensitive compartmented information,” a special category meant to protect the nation’s most important secrets — which if revealed publicly would harm US interests

    https://nypost.com/2022/08/12/fbi-seized-11-sets-of-classified-documents-in-trump-mar-a-lago-raid/

    Why would he even want any of this stuff?
    Sell?
    Bribe?
    Blackmail?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,241

    kle4 said:

    One of the top secret sets was marked “Various classified/TS/SCI documents,” which is the abbreviation for “top secret/sensitive compartmented information,” a special category meant to protect the nation’s most important secrets — which if revealed publicly would harm US interests

    https://nypost.com/2022/08/12/fbi-seized-11-sets-of-classified-documents-in-trump-mar-a-lago-raid/

    Why would he even want any of this stuff?
    Sell?
    Bribe?
    Blackmail?
    I suppose in his mind he never stopped being president - surprised he's not tried that argument yet.

    Another reason they should consider stopping calling ex-officials by their previously held titles, like Governor, Senator or, indeed, President.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,286
    Leon said:

    What even is that UFO photo?

    I've looked at this case and my suspicion is that most people in the story are telling the truth - as they see it. ie this is a real photo of something genuinely odd in the Scottish sky. It's not "a reflection in a loch" or a "kite"

    But WTF it is, I have no idea. Black tech?

    Did you read the Mail's headline?

    Revealed after 32 years: The 'most spectacular UFO photo ever captured' - or the first glimpse of America's fabled top-secret Aurora spy plane program?
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11106737/Most-spectacular-UFO-photo-captured-glimpse-secret-Aurora-spy-plane-program.html
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 2,697
    Leon said:

    What even is that UFO photo?

    I've looked at this case and my suspicion is that most people in the story are telling the truth - as they see it. ie this is a real photo of something genuinely odd in the Scottish sky. It's not "a reflection in a loch" or a "kite"

    But WTF it is, I have no idea. Black tech?

    Haha, I knew that would wind you up. The more I look at it, the more I'm convinced it's a fake based on something reflecting in liquid. The shadow looks wrong to me.

  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,148

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    GIN1138 said:

    GIN1138 said:

    Nigelb said:
    Will be rather convenient for GOP and DEMS alike if he can't stand for POTUS again after this...
    There is NOTHING in US Constitution barring someone with a criminal conviction from running for & being elected as President. Does NOT require POTUS to be qualified as a voter; just need to be a natural born citizen at least 35 years old and a resident of US (not of any particular state) for at least 14 years.

    Conviction for felony might NOT help Trump's 2024 prospects, but would bar neither his candidacy nor election.
    Mad country!
    Is there a legal bar, to someone with a criminal conviction serving as HM's Prime Minister?

    "No" being my guess.

    Heck, Lord Archer could become PM tomorrow, then address the nation from his perch in the House of Lords.
    No. If you have served your sentence, and regained the franchise, you can stand for Parliament and thence become PM.

    In practice, the likes of Horatio Bottomley have never recovered from their criminal conviction.
    Am talking strictly re: LEGAL impediments.

    As for standing for Parliament, one does NOT have to be a member of House of Commons to be PM.
    True, but technically members of the Lords are also members of Parliament.
    House of Lords = House of Unelected Has-Beens!
    Don’t forget the Unelected Never Wases.
  • pingping Posts: 3,177
    https://www.ft.com/content/7c3c79db-cf9e-4f83-b730-92d516a9bf6a

    “ UK’s debt and welfare payments bill set to soar by more than £50bn

    Forecast of extra annual costs will be fiscal dilemma for next prime minister juggling tax and spending”
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,920
    Leon said:

    What even is that UFO photo?

    I've looked at this case and my suspicion is that most people in the story are telling the truth - as they see it. ie this is a real photo of something genuinely odd in the Scottish sky. It's not "a reflection in a loch" or a "kite"

    But WTF it is, I have no idea. Black tech?

    It’s less compelling than the US navy cases, where there is released telemetry, visual and infra red video, and multi point eye witness testimony of the same events from pilots, co-pilots
    and ship based radar operators.

    This photo could conceivably be a UK-US stealth project of some kind. The 100ft description being the result of perspective shift of something much smaller. And yet, one has to consider it in the round of other evidence emerging around the world and the odd behaviour of many senior officials.

    The story of this leak goes that the retired MoD press person had a copy and gave it to the Uni of Hallam. Maybe.

    I no longer think the US Executive is engaging in a slow Disclosure process as the Biden govt has been fairly obstructive. If there’s anything coordinated it’s coming from deep state instead, if that kind of thing is your bag.

    I remain convinced that James Webb ST has rattled someone somewhere. They know what it’s likely to show in a relatively short period of time.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 55,093
    Eabhal said:

    Haha fucking hell, fox news have broadcast a doctored image of the search warrant judge in a private jet with Ghislaine Maxwell.

    No lawyer but I imagine that is quite a silly thing to do.

    Murdoch must have deep pockets.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,962

    The Sun has busted Starmer. He's on holiday in Majorca whilst the country on his watch goes to the dogs.

    Really, Starmer is Prime Minister? I must have missed that.

    I well remember the sheer terror among PB Tories back in 2010 with the realisation David Cameron would be going on holiday and the Prime Minister would be Nick Clegg.

    As we know, the modern Prime Minister, thanks to modern technology, is never "away" so it's a bit disingenuous of all sides to use it as a stick. Johnson's "caretaker" position is a bit different of course and while, pace Jim Callaghan, he could have appointed Gavin Williamson Minister of Drought thus ensuring weeks of rain, he has chosen to exit office quietly and leave a nice full inbox (not tray) for his successor.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 2,148

    Eabhal said:

    Haha fucking hell, fox news have broadcast a doctored image of the search warrant judge in a private jet with Ghislaine Maxwell.

    No lawyer but I imagine that is quite a silly thing to do.

    Murdoch must have deep pockets.
    Let’s hope they’re not deep enough.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,565
    edited August 12
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Rushdie news not great. Assailant fits the bill

    Stabbed "multiple times" - apparently. Who knows

    Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
    Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.

    Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
    You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.

    You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
    I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.

    This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
    It's also a strange theory, that extremism can be controlled by controlling immigration.
    Why? Countries with zero Muslim immigrants suffer zero Muslim terrorism. Or racist pedophile Muslim gangrape. See Japan
    We have lots of muslims already here, millions, zero immigration from anywhere would not change that and I'd hope we'd all agree any problem of internal extremism would not best be served by deporting 3 million citizens.
    Point me to the bit of my post where I even mentioned "deportation". Or go to the w3w square ///stupid.strawman,bollocks
    Point me to the bit of my post where I claimed you mentioned deportation.

    I didn't, in fact the point was no one had, so calm the heck down.

    You made a comparison with Japan, which google claims has a couple hundred thousand muslims, so assuming a small proportion are extremists halting all immigration might well have an effect in halting extremism growth. All I did was point out that is not the case here because there are millions, and no one has proposed anything to reduce that number, nor should they. Accordingly it is incredibly dumb to think halting immigration from anywhere would, in itself, eliminate muslim terrorism or gangs in this country, because many examples of both have been from people who are not immigrants.
    If you don't have any Muslims you don't have any Muslim terrorism. That is my only point, to support the narrow argument @HYUFD was making

    Because he is right. If you want a multicultural multiracial society, you will import a lot of good stuff AND a lot of bad stuff. That is simply the case. We live in a plural society so we get a vigorous culture with hybrid energy - it's bloody great for music - but we will also get nasty shit. Islamist terror and odious Muslim misogyny are part of the bad shit, as it relates to Muslims. People who preach for multiculturalism need to acknowledge this, and they will get more respect for their honesty. There are benefits and drawbacks

    And this OF COURSE goes both ways. What did the British/English bring to Ireland? Prosperity, orderly cities, Georgian architecture, imperial trade. We also imposed quasi-racist laws, divided their society, and perhaps Facilitated the Famine (we certainly did scandalously little to alleviate it). So it is up to the Irish to decide if we were "good" or "bad": for them
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 4,920
    Eabhal said:

    Leon said:

    What even is that UFO photo?

    I've looked at this case and my suspicion is that most people in the story are telling the truth - as they see it. ie this is a real photo of something genuinely odd in the Scottish sky. It's not "a reflection in a loch" or a "kite"

    But WTF it is, I have no idea. Black tech?

    Haha, I knew that would wind you up. The more I look at it, the more I'm convinced it's a fake based on something reflecting in liquid. The shadow looks wrong to me.

    You’re not engaging your brain if you think this. Why would the photos have been impounded and classified for almost a century if it was an obvious fake and military records of that day showed as much.

    It’s either black tech or non human.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 45,003
    edited August 12

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Not a bad report on the legal arguments which might ensue were the authorities to prosecute Trump.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-allies-say-declassified-mar-lago-documents-experts-say-unclear-w-rcna42311

    Classic example in there of the view that the President should have unfettered ability to make decisions on sensitive matters and not even have to tell anyone, no formal process required at all.

    Checks and balances, and limitations on executive power, is so 18th century, they definitely wanted a President to be able to rule by fiat whenever they want I am sure.
    Such an assertion is, of course, absurd on its face.
    It would allow any ex President to claim, years after leaving office, that all US records in existence up until the end of his term are all of a sudden declassified.
    Because he decided so a decade ago, and just waited a while to tell anyone.
    He will surely be able to produce witnesses to testify he said it was declassified whilst President. He would need to convince only one or two jurors.

    The Republican party should, of course, use this as an opportunity to get rid, but they are too frit and cucked to even try.
    Again, absurd. He could claim that for the entirety of federal records up until the end of his term on that basis.

    Presidents have an unfettered power* to declassify - but there’s a process, and if the decision isn’t recorded, then logic, and very likely the law, says it didn’t happen.

    * Except if there are nuclear secrets in there - Presidents can’t declassify those on their own.

    Note also that there are a couple of statutes which don’t require the documents to be classified at all for a crime to have been committed.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,917
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    kle4 said:

    Nigelb said:

    Not a bad report on the legal arguments which might ensue were the authorities to prosecute Trump.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-allies-say-declassified-mar-lago-documents-experts-say-unclear-w-rcna42311

    Classic example in there of the view that the President should have unfettered ability to make decisions on sensitive matters and not even have to tell anyone, no formal process required at all.

    Checks and balances, and limitations on executive power, is so 18th century, they definitely wanted a President to be able to rule by fiat whenever they want I am sure.
    Such an assertion is, of course, absurd on its face.
    It would allow any ex President to claim, years after leaving office, that all US records in existence up until the end of his term are all of a sudden declassified.
    Because he decided so a decade ago, and just waited a while to tell anyone.
    He will surely be able to produce witnesses to testify he said it was declassified whilst President. He would need to convince only one or two jurors.

    The Republican party should, of course, use this as an opportunity to get rid, but they are too frit and cucked to even try.
    Again, absurd. He could claim that for the entirety of federal records up until the end of his term on that basis.

    Presidents have an unfettered power* to declassify - but there’s a process, and if the decision isn’t recorded, then logic, and very likely the law, says it didn’t happen.

    * Except if there are nuclear secrets in there - Presidents can’t declassify those on their own.

    Note also that there are a couple of statutes which don’t require the documents to be classified at all for a crime to have been committed.
    Sure it is absurd. If one is interested in whether he is guilty or not it would be quite surprising if he has any good defence. If one is interested in whether he will be found guilty or not, he is quite capable of finding people to believe the absurd.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,241
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Carnyx said:

    Eabhal said:

    HYUFD said:

    Cyclefree said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    Rushdie news not great. Assailant fits the bill

    Stabbed "multiple times" - apparently. Who knows

    Not great but he always knew he was taking a huge risk in terms of the reaction amongst hardline Muslims when he wrote the Satanic Verses
    Victim blaming. Much like the reaction of some Tories and Labour politicians at the time of the original fatwa.

    Dishonourable and cowardly then. Dishonourable and cowardly now.
    You can have a free, liberal society or a fully multicutultural one, including lots of hardline Muslims.

    You cannot have both or they will conflict, that is just the reality left liberals need to face. Either you preserve a free, liberal society and tighten immigration controls to filter out extremists or you have open door immigration but with restraint needed on free speech or you get conflict
    I think you can as long on the extremists don't go around stabbing people.

    This is largely the case in the UK. We just need to crack down on anyone who wants to impose their views on others outwith the democratic system, by violence or otherwise.
    It's also a strange theory, that extremism can be controlled by controlling immigration.
    Why? Countries with zero Muslim immigrants suffer zero Muslim terrorism. Or racist pedophile Muslim gangrape. See Japan
    We have lots of muslims already here, millions, zero immigration from anywhere would not change that and I'd hope we'd all agree any problem of internal extremism would not best be served by deporting 3 million citizens.
    Point me to the bit of my post where I even mentioned "deportation". Or go to the w3w square ///stupid.strawman,bollocks
    Point me to the bit of my post where I claimed you mentioned deportation.

    I didn't, in fact the point was no one had, so calm the heck down.

    You made a comparison with Japan, which google claims has a couple hundred thousand muslims, so assuming a small proportion are extremists halting all immigration might well have an effect in halting extremism growth. All I did was point out that is not the case here because there are millions, and no one has proposed anything to reduce that number, nor should they. Accordingly it is incredibly dumb to think halting immigration from anywhere would, in itself, eliminate muslim terrorism or gangs in this country, because many examples of both have been from people who are not immigrants.
    If you don't have any Muslims you don't have any Muslim terrorism. That is my only point, to support the narrow argument HYUFD was making

    And my point was that point will never now apply in this country so it is a really weird thing to bring up.

    That multiculturalism comes with good and bad is largely inarguable, who is saying that in a melting pot things do not get burned from tiem to time?
This discussion has been closed.