Today the US MidTerms – the final final chapter – politicalbetting.com

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

kinabalu said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

OGH's headline is factually incorrect, although it is largely accurate from perspective of most Brit bettors.

Note that there are number of recounts for various offices, either still ongoing or yet to commence, across USA from sea to shining sea.

For example - and for comic relief - in WA 3rd Congressional, Putinist loser Joe Kent has requested a machine recount, which won't happen until the WA Secretary of State certifies the election later this week.

Basically just more grifting by a MAGA-maniac grifter, emulating his role model the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo. BUT meaning that the Georgia runnoff - which itself will not be certified today obviously - is NOT the "Final Final Chapter" for the 2022 US midterm elections.

I understand Kari Lake is claiming a Steal.

I understand that Kari Lake is Putinist idiot.

Good discussion of AZ election, recount & etc., etc. situation post-certification of 2022 general.

So am I reading it right that because Lake's successful opponent is Secretary of State, she gets to sign the certification of her own victory? That is amusing, if seemingly odd there is no rule about those running for a particular office having to sit out or deputised for such a technical process involving themselves, even though all the proper work is already done.

The AG race is a real squeaker too

Nominee Kristin Mayes Abraham Hamadeh
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 1,254,613 1,254,102
Percentage 50.00% 49.98%

DougSeal said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fppt on the constitution

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.

You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.

The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy

That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.

They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.

Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either

Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.

There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.

If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway

It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.

Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?

A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.

Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.

Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.

Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.

It should be truth universally acknowledged that those who whine about SNP ‘Westminster’ dog whistles are invariably serial bleaters about ‘Brussels’.

The annoying thing is the instant assumption that a wish for Scottish independence is necessarily somehow racist, as if someone's rights to empire were being traduced.

It's not necessarily racist.

But some of it is driven by racism.

And the SNP foster and benefit from that element.

Excellent evideence against that is that the party has a very large component of English incomers for independence. They have their own group.

“English Scots for Yes”? They always get trotted out as support for this tired tripe. A group so massive and committed they didn’t even renew their own website domain, yet they still get trotted out as some form of proof of the vibrant “inclusivity” of this specific form of nationalism.

https://englishscotsforyes.org/

Not surprising given it's between indyrefs.

You need to do a lot better than that. The mere indication of opposition to a UKG normally not of a type for which voters in Scotland voted doesn't make them racist.

Cases of scarlet fever in Britain are back at ~1910-1950 rates. It's not clear where they will go from here.

There seems to be a bit of a mystery both over why SF cases subsided to a low level, albeit without completely disappearing, and why they rose again in the 2010s. There is no vaccine.

Carnyx said:

DougSeal said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fppt on the constitution

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.

You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.

The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy

That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.

They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.

Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either

Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.

There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.

If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway

It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.

Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?

A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.

Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.

Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.

Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.

It should be truth universally acknowledged that those who whine about SNP ‘Westminster’ dog whistles are invariably serial bleaters about ‘Brussels’.

The annoying thing is the instant assumption that a wish for Scottish independence is necessarily somehow racist, as if someone's rights to empire were being traduced.

It's not necessarily racist.

But some of it is driven by racism.

And the SNP foster and benefit from that element.

Excellent evideence against that is that the party has a very large component of English incomers for independence. They have their own group.

“English Scots for Yes”? They always get trotted out as support for this tired tripe. A group so massive and committed they didn’t even renew their own website domain, yet they still get trotted out as some form of proof of the vibrant “inclusivity” of this specific form of nationalism.

https://englishscotsforyes.org/

Not surprising given it's between indyrefs.

You need to do a lot better than that. The mere indication of opposition to a UKG normally not of a type for which voters in Scotland voted doesn't make them racist.

I never said it did.

Scott_xP said:

NEW: Govt to lift ban on onshore wind farms to avoid another Tory rebellion. Decisions will revert to local communities and there will be no requirement for near unanimous support for new wind farms to go ahead
https://twitter.com/Daniel_J_Martin/status/1600183090437029896

But what if there is a rebellion on this?

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fppt on the constitution

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.

You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.

The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy

That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.

They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.

Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either

Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.

There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.

If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway

It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.

Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?

A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.

Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.

Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.

Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.

It should be truth universally acknowledged that those who whine about SNP ‘Westminster’ dog whistles are invariably serial bleaters about ‘Brussels’.

The annoying thing is the instant assumption that a wish for Scottish independence is necessarily somehow racist, as if someone's rights to empire were being traduced.

You want that to be true. It's almost as if Scottish national identity were associated for many of its possessors with a massive chip on the shoulder.

I've never come across anybody who says a wish for Scottish independence is necessarily racist. I doubt you ever have either. Perhaps you believe that lots of people think it but keep quiet about it, or only say it where Scots can't hear them?

Watch for the rise of "Hit the road, Jock" feeling south of the border. Over the next two to three years this could be fuelled by various political scenarios. "Empire", my a*se. The drift would be along the lines of "We've had enough of hearing all this deluded sh*t, so JFO."

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The cruel, unfair and heartless agony of penalties are the exact reason they should be retained

Such merciless drama

Not this again. You need to take a hard look inside yourself. Make sure you're truly ok with what you see.

That said, I was fine with this shootout since it went the way I wanted.

I'm with you. (Well, on the implication that penalties are bad, not on the implication that Leon is somehow morally suspect for liking them.)

But from what I know of people who like football, the capriciousness and injustice of the sport is part of the attraction. I like rugby and test cricket: very hard sports to win by luck. Sports where if you break the rules, and are caught breaking the rules, the outcome is always worse than if you don't break the rules. Sports where, in short, you can see some sort of justice.
But you suggest to football fans ways in which their sport could be improved in ways to better match the outcome to how the game is played and they look at you blankly. Because by doing so you're missing the point: the sheer capriciousness of football is, for many, part of the attraction. That's just how it is. Leon uses the word 'drama'. Now personally I don't really want drama. (I don't like drama, in this or any other context. I like to watch a sporting contest in which the best team or individuals win. I don't really want personality to come into it. I don't want back stories. There is actual made-up drama for all that, and I don't want that either. I am, however, quite happy for humour to come into it. If something funny happens, that's great.) But many football fans genuinely do want drama. And thus, sadly, we're stuck with the penalty shoot out.

Morocco have conceded one deflected own goal over four and a third games and a penalty shootout.

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The cruel, unfair and heartless agony of penalties are the exact reason they should be retained

Such merciless drama

Not this again. You need to take a hard look inside yourself. Make sure you're truly ok with what you see.

That said, I was fine with this shootout since it went the way I wanted.

I'm with you. (Well, on the implication that penalties are bad, not on the implication that Leon is somehow morally suspect for liking them.)

But from what I know of people who like football, the capriciousness and injustice of the sport is part of the attraction. I like rugby and test cricket: very hard sports to win by luck. Sports where if you break the rules, and are caught breaking the rules, the outcome is always worse than if you don't break the rules. Sports where, in short, you can see some sort of justice.
But you suggest to football fans ways in which their sport could be improved in ways to better match the outcome to how the game is played and they look at you blankly. Because by doing so you're missing the point: the sheer capriciousness of football is, for many, part of the attraction. That's just how it is. Leon uses the word 'drama'. Now personally I don't really want drama. (I don't like drama, in this or any other context. I like to watch a sporting contest in which the best team or individuals win. I don't really want personality to come into it. I don't want back stories. There is actual made-up drama for all that, and I don't want that either. I am, however, quite happy for humour to come into it. If something funny happens, that's great.) But many football fans genuinely do want drama. And thus, sadly, we're stuck with the penalty shoot out.

Part of the joy of football is the unpredictability. Games often hungry on a single goal, unlike cricket or rugby, so a bit of luck or sublime skill can mean an upset.

Football is the most popular game in the world for a reason, and upsets are part of that reason.

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The cruel, unfair and heartless agony of penalties are the exact reason they should be retained

Such merciless drama

Not this again. You need to take a hard look inside yourself. Make sure you're truly ok with what you see.

That said, I was fine with this shootout since it went the way I wanted.

I'm with you. (Well, on the implication that penalties are bad, not on the implication that Leon is somehow morally suspect for liking them.)

But from what I know of people who like football, the capriciousness and injustice of the sport is part of the attraction. I like rugby and test cricket: very hard sports to win by luck. Sports where if you break the rules, and are caught breaking the rules, the outcome is always worse than if you don't break the rules. Sports where, in short, you can see some sort of justice.
But you suggest to football fans ways in which their sport could be improved in ways to better match the outcome to how the game is played and they look at you blankly. Because by doing so you're missing the point: the sheer capriciousness of football is, for many, part of the attraction. That's just how it is. Leon uses the word 'drama'. Now personally I don't really want drama. (I don't like drama, in this or any other context. I like to watch a sporting contest in which the best team or individuals win. I don't really want personality to come into it. I don't want back stories. There is actual made-up drama for all that, and I don't want that either. I am, however, quite happy for humour to come into it. If something funny happens, that's great.) But many football fans genuinely do want drama. And thus, sadly, we're stuck with the penalty shoot out.

The issue with penalties for me is that it divides sides based on just one tiny aspect of the game. Penalties are not actually that common in football. It’s quite common that teams will only be awarded a few penalties in a given season, in single figures. Why then is this chosen to be the way to resolve games?
Because it’s simple, and you can count the goals.
I’d much rather the game was decided in real play, and have suggested combining the golden goal (next goal wins) with a gradual reduction of players on the pitch, say one player each every 5 minutes. You wouldn’t get much past 7 vs 7 before someone scored with the extra space. And the goal would be from open play, not a penalty.
But what do I know.

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

Seriously tho. The case of Daniel Shaver. Should not be forgotten. Unspeakable

You've gone full woke as only Wokistas worry about police brutality.

The video of Shaver's cold-blooded, sadistic murder is one of the worst things I have ever seen

The copper who gunned him down for lolz had "YOU'RE FUCKED" written on his assault rifle

I've seen it before, John Oliver covered it.

Read up on no knock warrants and what happens when the police knock on the wrong door.

CarlottaVance said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Shocked to find out that egg chucker has a long history of being arrested and is an eco- fascist that is still a student in his mid 20s. Only thing missing from the bingo card is that he spends his summers travelling to places like Bali with his private school chums and that his parents are multi-millionaires.

An Extinction Rebellion activist wept as she was warned she could face jail along with six other women for causing almost £100,000 in damage to Barclay's London headquarters.

Carol Wood cried as she was found guilty at Southwark Crown Court today of causing criminal damage over the incident on April 7 last year, when the seven XR activists smashed the windows of the bank's Canary Wharf office.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11504755/Extinction-Rebellion-activist-weeps-faces-jail-causing-100k-damage-Barclays-HQ.html

"Carol Wood"? That's a jarringly normal name for an ecoloon. Probably if she'd styled herself Spaghetta Tumbril-Down, she'd be being sent on her way with a biscuit and a mild admonishment not to do it again.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

Seriously tho. The case of Daniel Shaver. Should not be forgotten. Unspeakable

You've gone full woke as only Wokistas worry about police brutality.

The video of Shaver's cold-blooded, sadistic murder is one of the worst things I have ever seen

The copper who gunned him down for lolz had "YOU'RE FUCKED" written on his assault rifle

I've seen it before, John Oliver covered it.

Read up on no knock warrants and what happens when the police knock on the wrong door.

I've never seen or heard of it before. It only came up on my Twiter-feed today coz Arizona have just given the poor guy's widow $8m

Yet still the two coppers - the shooter and the shouter - walk free. With pension

Everything about the case is horrific. The full video, which completely condemns the police, was only released after the trial

I warn any PB-er with a mind to watch it: this is deeply distressing

Leon said:

Foxy said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The cruel, unfair and heartless agony of penalties are the exact reason they should be retained

Such merciless drama

Not this again. You need to take a hard look inside yourself. Make sure you're truly ok with what you see.

That said, I was fine with this shootout since it went the way I wanted.

I'm with you. (Well, on the implication that penalties are bad, not on the implication that Leon is somehow morally suspect for liking them.)

But from what I know of people who like football, the capriciousness and injustice of the sport is part of the attraction. I like rugby and test cricket: very hard sports to win by luck. Sports where if you break the rules, and are caught breaking the rules, the outcome is always worse than if you don't break the rules. Sports where, in short, you can see some sort of justice.
But you suggest to football fans ways in which their sport could be improved in ways to better match the outcome to how the game is played and they look at you blankly. Because by doing so you're missing the point: the sheer capriciousness of football is, for many, part of the attraction. That's just how it is. Leon uses the word 'drama'. Now personally I don't really want drama. (I don't like drama, in this or any other context. I like to watch a sporting contest in which the best team or individuals win. I don't really want personality to come into it. I don't want back stories. There is actual made-up drama for all that, and I don't want that either. I am, however, quite happy for humour to come into it. If something funny happens, that's great.) But many football fans genuinely do want drama. And thus, sadly, we're stuck with the penalty shoot out.

Part of the joy of football is the unpredictability. Games often hungry on a single goal, unlike cricket or rugby, so a bit of luck or sublime skill can mean an upset.

Football is the most popular game in the world for a reason, and upsets are part of that reason.

Yes, I really don't want a sport where the theoretically superior team ALWAYS wins. That said, I don't believe this happens in rugby, either

Rugby is a passionate game and sometimes the supposedly lesser side with greater passion can win out. See: multiple Wales v England matches

In rugby, the team who plays the best almost always wins (not quite always - but it does it a lot better than football).
But you don't know until the teams take the pitch who is going to play better.
Usually, it goes with form: the team with the better players plays better. But not always. A poorer team can raise its game.

kle4 said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

kinabalu said:

SeaShantyIrish2 said:

OGH's headline is factually incorrect, although it is largely accurate from perspective of most Brit bettors.

Note that there are number of recounts for various offices, either still ongoing or yet to commence, across USA from sea to shining sea.

For example - and for comic relief - in WA 3rd Congressional, Putinist loser Joe Kent has requested a machine recount, which won't happen until the WA Secretary of State certifies the election later this week.

Basically just more grifting by a MAGA-maniac grifter, emulating his role model the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo. BUT meaning that the Georgia runnoff - which itself will not be certified today obviously - is NOT the "Final Final Chapter" for the 2022 US midterm elections.

I understand Kari Lake is claiming a Steal.

I understand that Kari Lake is Putinist idiot.

Good discussion of AZ election, recount & etc., etc. situation post-certification of 2022 general.

So am I reading it right that because Lake's successful opponent is Secretary of State, she gets to sign the certification of her own victory? That is amusing, if seemingly odd there is no rule about those running for a particular office having to sit out or deputised for such a technical process involving themselves, even though all the proper work is already done.

The AG race is a real squeaker too

Nominee Kristin Mayes Abraham Hamadeh
Party Democratic Republican
Popular vote 1,254,613 1,254,102
Percentage 50.00% 49.98%

Re: Hobbs, as AZ Secretary of State, declaring her own victory for Governor, PBers may recall then US Vice President Al Gore, declaring his own defeat for President; same as VP Hubert Humphrey did when he declared Richard Nixon the winner after 1968 election.

Hardly unique situation either way in American electoral history, at any level of govt.

Further note that "gets to sign the certification" should read "required to sign the certification" under state law. As what is called in US a "ministerial" duty of her (current) office.

In some states, local & state election officials can delegate their deputy or other staff to serve their place on local & state election canvassing boards. In cases where they cannot make a meeting OR if they choose to recuse themselves because they are on the ballot for that election.

For example, in Skagit Co, Washington the Auditor was up for re-election this year, so she delegated her election supervisor to serve on canvassing board. Until her election (along with rest, except for one mandatory recount for state leg) was certified. For the recount, she's back on (the) board.

Ghedebrav said:

turbotubbs said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The cruel, unfair and heartless agony of penalties are the exact reason they should be retained

Such merciless drama

Not this again. You need to take a hard look inside yourself. Make sure you're truly ok with what you see.

That said, I was fine with this shootout since it went the way I wanted.

I'm with you. (Well, on the implication that penalties are bad, not on the implication that Leon is somehow morally suspect for liking them.)

But from what I know of people who like football, the capriciousness and injustice of the sport is part of the attraction. I like rugby and test cricket: very hard sports to win by luck. Sports where if you break the rules, and are caught breaking the rules, the outcome is always worse than if you don't break the rules. Sports where, in short, you can see some sort of justice.
But you suggest to football fans ways in which their sport could be improved in ways to better match the outcome to how the game is played and they look at you blankly. Because by doing so you're missing the point: the sheer capriciousness of football is, for many, part of the attraction. That's just how it is. Leon uses the word 'drama'. Now personally I don't really want drama. (I don't like drama, in this or any other context. I like to watch a sporting contest in which the best team or individuals win. I don't really want personality to come into it. I don't want back stories. There is actual made-up drama for all that, and I don't want that either. I am, however, quite happy for humour to come into it. If something funny happens, that's great.) But many football fans genuinely do want drama. And thus, sadly, we're stuck with the penalty shoot out.

The issue with penalties for me is that it divides sides based on just one tiny aspect of the game. Penalties are not actually that common in football. It’s quite common that teams will only be awarded a few penalties in a given season, in single figures. Why then is this chosen to be the way to resolve games?
Because it’s simple, and you can count the goals.
I’d much rather the game was decided in real play, and have suggested combining the golden goal (next goal wins) with a gradual reduction of players on the pitch, say one player each every 5 minutes. You wouldn’t get much past 7 vs 7 before someone scored with the extra space. And the goal would be from open play, not a penalty.
But what do I know.

Broadcasters need to know a definite cutoff point though. And fans need to go home and stuff, boring practical things like being able to make the train or whatever. The game needs to stop.

Penalties strike me as being a brilliantly dramatic way to finish a match tbh. It’s always much-watch. Unfair? Dunno. It seems as fair a way as any other, if a two teams can play for 120 mins and still not break deadlock.

During the current 30 mins of my planned golden goal/reducing teams, you would be down to 5 vs 5 on a full size pitch. Someone would have scored. Don’t believe me? Look at sevens rugby and how much easier it is to score with fewer players on the pitch.
Currently a game like tonight’s which goes to penalties is 30 minutes plus at least 10 more. My version would be no longer.

Leon said:

Seriously tho. The case of Daniel Shaver. Should not be forgotten. Unspeakable

It’s an egregious example, but not entirely unusual for US policing.
Train and arm cops like paramilitaries, while at the same time offering a blanket of at least partial immunity for the consequences of their actions, and they will act like paramilitaries.

turbotubbs said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The cruel, unfair and heartless agony of penalties are the exact reason they should be retained

Such merciless drama

Not this again. You need to take a hard look inside yourself. Make sure you're truly ok with what you see.

That said, I was fine with this shootout since it went the way I wanted.

I'm with you. (Well, on the implication that penalties are bad, not on the implication that Leon is somehow morally suspect for liking them.)

But from what I know of people who like football, the capriciousness and injustice of the sport is part of the attraction. I like rugby and test cricket: very hard sports to win by luck. Sports where if you break the rules, and are caught breaking the rules, the outcome is always worse than if you don't break the rules. Sports where, in short, you can see some sort of justice.
But you suggest to football fans ways in which their sport could be improved in ways to better match the outcome to how the game is played and they look at you blankly. Because by doing so you're missing the point: the sheer capriciousness of football is, for many, part of the attraction. That's just how it is. Leon uses the word 'drama'. Now personally I don't really want drama. (I don't like drama, in this or any other context. I like to watch a sporting contest in which the best team or individuals win. I don't really want personality to come into it. I don't want back stories. There is actual made-up drama for all that, and I don't want that either. I am, however, quite happy for humour to come into it. If something funny happens, that's great.) But many football fans genuinely do want drama. And thus, sadly, we're stuck with the penalty shoot out.

The issue with penalties for me is that it divides sides based on just one tiny aspect of the game. Penalties are not actually that common in football. It’s quite common that teams will only be awarded a few penalties in a given season, in single figures. Why then is this chosen to be the way to resolve games?
Because it’s simple, and you can count the goals.
I’d much rather the game was decided in real play, and have suggested combining the golden goal (next goal wins) with a gradual reduction of players on the pitch, say one player each every 5 minutes. You wouldn’t get much past 7 vs 7 before someone scored with the extra space. And the goal would be from open play, not a penalty.
But what do I know.

I just assume that the whole penalty kick thing, is just a way of concluding matches for the fun & profit of commercial broadcasters?

Same as with equally-ridiculous over-time rules for US professional (American) football?

BTW (also) FYI, still recall the infamous "Heidi" incident re: broadcast of an NFL game back in the (IIRC) 1970s. When the game ran into (old-school) overtime, then national TV broadcast was preempted by previously-scheduled holiday-season airing of "Heidi"

Can still remember my own daddy dearest howling with baffled outrage. While my sisters were wailing, because they REALLY wanted to watch "Heidi" and he was NOT helping!

Carnyx said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fppt on the constitution

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.

You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.

The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy

That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.

They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.

Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either

Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.

There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.

If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway

It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.

Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?

And politely suggest its best not to use 'Celtic' as a synonym of the non-English nations. It's not accurate for Scotland (even if one means the Highlands and Western Islands, which is obviously not the case here), and a lot of people in NI would take great offence.

I see the inclusion of the UK as a voting member as a way to avoid a tied vote, and to recognise the stake of the UK Government in the process. The effective 'doubling' of the 'English' vote isn't a characterisation I would agree with, but it does gesture slightly toward the population magnititude of England, whilst also recognising the equal historical nationhood of the other parties, regardless of size. It is important within the system that Wales, NI, and Scotland could, as a voting group, get the UK Government to think again, but not weighted so that this becomes the usual status quo. The UK Government has to convince at least 2 of the parties to vote with it - if it can't do this, why is it proposing something?

Ah, thanks. Better, though, to have a majority vote than mix incommensurates, though - you can't have the proposing body part of the referring body, any more than the HoC is part of the HoL.

Edit: sorry, meant revising/reviewing.

On councils, the proposer can vote in favour of their own motion. This is like that.

The intention of this would be to be a small meeting of leaders, without a crusty layer of bureaucracy forming around it.

I find penalties a really interesting dividing line, among both big footy fans and occasional watchers.

Personally - as a reasonably passionate football fan; I go and watch at least seven or eight games a year and more on the telly, albeit not so much top level stuff - I love them and I think they bring fantastic drama to the end of a match. Nobody likes to see their side lose on penos but honestly if you can’t win in 120 mins you can’t feel that bad about it.

solarflare said:

Ghedebrav said:

turbotubbs said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The cruel, unfair and heartless agony of penalties are the exact reason they should be retained

Such merciless drama

Not this again. You need to take a hard look inside yourself. Make sure you're truly ok with what you see.

That said, I was fine with this shootout since it went the way I wanted.

I'm with you. (Well, on the implication that penalties are bad, not on the implication that Leon is somehow morally suspect for liking them.)

But from what I know of people who like football, the capriciousness and injustice of the sport is part of the attraction. I like rugby and test cricket: very hard sports to win by luck. Sports where if you break the rules, and are caught breaking the rules, the outcome is always worse than if you don't break the rules. Sports where, in short, you can see some sort of justice.
But you suggest to football fans ways in which their sport could be improved in ways to better match the outcome to how the game is played and they look at you blankly. Because by doing so you're missing the point: the sheer capriciousness of football is, for many, part of the attraction. That's just how it is. Leon uses the word 'drama'. Now personally I don't really want drama. (I don't like drama, in this or any other context. I like to watch a sporting contest in which the best team or individuals win. I don't really want personality to come into it. I don't want back stories. There is actual made-up drama for all that, and I don't want that either. I am, however, quite happy for humour to come into it. If something funny happens, that's great.) But many football fans genuinely do want drama. And thus, sadly, we're stuck with the penalty shoot out.

The issue with penalties for me is that it divides sides based on just one tiny aspect of the game. Penalties are not actually that common in football. It’s quite common that teams will only be awarded a few penalties in a given season, in single figures. Why then is this chosen to be the way to resolve games?
Because it’s simple, and you can count the goals.
I’d much rather the game was decided in real play, and have suggested combining the golden goal (next goal wins) with a gradual reduction of players on the pitch, say one player each every 5 minutes. You wouldn’t get much past 7 vs 7 before someone scored with the extra space. And the goal would be from open play, not a penalty.
But what do I know.

Broadcasters need to know a definite cutoff point though. And fans need to go home and stuff, boring practical things like being able to make the train or whatever. The game needs to stop.

Penalties strike me as being a brilliantly dramatic way to finish a match tbh. It’s always much-watch. Unfair? Dunno. It seems as fair a way as any other, if a two teams can play for 120 mins and still not break deadlock.

Adopt the @turbotubbs suggestion as the extra time format and then if that still hasn't worked at the end of a defined ET period, then do penalties.

Jesus, might actually make extra time interesting.

The Golden Goal didn’t really work though. Maybe the taking-players-off thing would, but there again, I don’t know how that’s any fairer. There isn’t a perfect answer, I don’t think.

Cookie said:

Ghedebrav said:

turbotubbs said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The cruel, unfair and heartless agony of penalties are the exact reason they should be retained

Such merciless drama

Not this again. You need to take a hard look inside yourself. Make sure you're truly ok with what you see.

That said, I was fine with this shootout since it went the way I wanted.

I'm with you. (Well, on the implication that penalties are bad, not on the implication that Leon is somehow morally suspect for liking them.)

But from what I know of people who like football, the capriciousness and injustice of the sport is part of the attraction. I like rugby and test cricket: very hard sports to win by luck. Sports where if you break the rules, and are caught breaking the rules, the outcome is always worse than if you don't break the rules. Sports where, in short, you can see some sort of justice.
But you suggest to football fans ways in which their sport could be improved in ways to better match the outcome to how the game is played and they look at you blankly. Because by doing so you're missing the point: the sheer capriciousness of football is, for many, part of the attraction. That's just how it is. Leon uses the word 'drama'. Now personally I don't really want drama. (I don't like drama, in this or any other context. I like to watch a sporting contest in which the best team or individuals win. I don't really want personality to come into it. I don't want back stories. There is actual made-up drama for all that, and I don't want that either. I am, however, quite happy for humour to come into it. If something funny happens, that's great.) But many football fans genuinely do want drama. And thus, sadly, we're stuck with the penalty shoot out.

The issue with penalties for me is that it divides sides based on just one tiny aspect of the game. Penalties are not actually that common in football. It’s quite common that teams will only be awarded a few penalties in a given season, in single figures. Why then is this chosen to be the way to resolve games?
Because it’s simple, and you can count the goals.
I’d much rather the game was decided in real play, and have suggested combining the golden goal (next goal wins) with a gradual reduction of players on the pitch, say one player each every 5 minutes. You wouldn’t get much past 7 vs 7 before someone scored with the extra space. And the goal would be from open play, not a penalty.
But what do I know.

Broadcasters need to know a definite cutoff point though. And fans need to go home and stuff, boring practical things like being able to make the train or whatever. The game needs to stop.

Penalties strike me as being a brilliantly dramatic way to finish a match tbh. It’s always much-watch. Unfair? Dunno. It seems as fair a way as any other, if a two teams can play for 120 mins and still not break deadlock.

To be honest, I usually turn it off if it's still level after 120 minutes. (Unless someone else in the house is watching it, obviously. I'm not a monster. I just don't like penalties as a spectacle.)

What I'd like to see happen is the following: the best performing team to get knocked out in the previous round should be nominated as a 'reserve' side. (In this instance, as the best placed third placed team from the two groups, it would be Germany.) If neither side can manage a win, the reserve side goes through. Now that would be drama. It would properly incentivise teams to go all out for a win as the end of extra time approached.

Sounds a bit like PR: Neither of the top two teams win outright... so the 3rd placed Lib Dems get the spoils (sort of).

It would be good to give the Henry Birtles' "Advantage" proposal a trial: the shoot-out to be held before extra-time, and only acting as a tiebreak if the game remains a draw after the full 120 minutes.

Stephen Flynn is the new SNP Westminster leader.

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fppt on the constitution

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.

You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.

The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy

That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.

They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.

Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either

Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.

There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.

If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway

It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.

Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?

A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.

Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.

Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.

Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.

It should be truth universally acknowledged that those who whine about SNP ‘Westminster’ dog whistles are invariably serial bleaters about ‘Brussels’.

If the snp want independence for Scotland they are more likely to get it from a referendum south of the border to be honest

dixiedean said:

Scott_xP said:

NEW: Govt to lift ban on onshore wind farms to avoid another Tory rebellion. Decisions will revert to local communities and there will be no requirement for near unanimous support for new wind farms to go ahead
https://twitter.com/Daniel_J_Martin/status/1600183090437029896

But what if there is a rebellion on this?

I find this rebellion in favour onshore wind farms somewhat confected. I'd like to know who these 'rebels' are - it sounds to me like the Government wanted to do this anyway, and a few compliant MP's helpfully wobbled their jowls about it. I can't actually think who'd want these monstrosities in their constituency unless on the receiving end of some form of preferment.

Lets hope this game is a tad better standard than Solihull Motors vs Boreham Wood.....

Leon said:

Seriously tho. The case of Daniel Shaver. Should not be forgotten. Unspeakable

Why has it got less attention than the George Floyd case?

DougSeal said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fppt on the constitution

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.

You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.

The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy

That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.

They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.

Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either

Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.

There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.

If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway

It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.

Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?

A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.

Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.

Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.

Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.

It should be truth universally acknowledged that those who whine about SNP ‘Westminster’ dog whistles are invariably serial bleaters about ‘Brussels’.

The annoying thing is the instant assumption that a wish for Scottish independence is necessarily somehow racist, as if someone's rights to empire were being traduced.

It's not necessarily racist.

But some of it is driven by racism.

And the SNP foster and benefit from that element.

Excellent evideence against that is that the party has a very large component of English incomers for independence. They have their own group.

“English Scots for Yes”? They always get trotted out as support for this tired tripe. A group so massive and committed they didn’t even renew their own website domain, yet they still get trotted out as some form of proof of the vibrant “inclusivity” of this specific form of nationalism.

https://englishscotsforyes.org/

I'm 100% in favour of Scottish Independence, but I wouldn't join a group over it, as I think its a matter for the Scots to determine democratically at their own elections.

Andy_JS said:

Leon said:

Seriously tho. The case of Daniel Shaver. Should not be forgotten. Unspeakable

Why has it got less attention than the George Floyd case?

While I'm sure race was a factor, there was also no video footage until years later. Most people - at the time - took the view that if the police said he was acting threateningly, then he was acting threateningly.

We only know the truth several years after the event and after the police went to extraordinary lengths to avoid people seeing what happend.

kinabalu said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The cruel, unfair and heartless agony of penalties are the exact reason they should be retained

Such merciless drama

Not this again. You need to take a hard look inside yourself. Make sure you're truly ok with what you see.

That said, I was fine with this shootout since it went the way I wanted.

I'm with you. (Well, on the implication that penalties are bad, not on the implication that Leon is somehow morally suspect for liking them.)

But from what I know of people who like football, the capriciousness and injustice of the sport is part of the attraction. I like rugby and test cricket: very hard sports to win by luck. Sports where if you break the rules, and are caught breaking the rules, the outcome is always worse than if you don't break the rules. Sports where, in short, you can see some sort of justice.
But you suggest to football fans ways in which their sport could be improved in ways to better match the outcome to how the game is played and they look at you blankly. Because by doing so you're missing the point: the sheer capriciousness of football is, for many, part of the attraction. That's just how it is. Leon uses the word 'drama'. Now personally I don't really want drama. (I don't like drama, in this or any other context. I like to watch a sporting contest in which the best team or individuals win. I don't really want personality to come into it. I don't want back stories. There is actual made-up drama for all that, and I don't want that either. I am, however, quite happy for humour to come into it. If something funny happens, that's great.) But many football fans genuinely do want drama. And thus, sadly, we're stuck with the penalty shoot out.

Nick Hornby said the absolute best way for your team to win a football match is a last second winner against the play that furthermore should have been disallowed.

I get that sentiment but I don't really share it. Maybe because I don't have a club team in my blood. So not a proper fan, I guess, although I do like football and esp these big international tournaments.

Yes, many, if not most, highly partisan football fans I know would share that view.
Which is fair enough.

There is something of a spectrum in sport from those which people go to see regardless of who is playing (like tennis, or snooker), to those which are highly dependent on people really caring who wins. Football is right at one end of this spectrum; it isn't a typical sport. So I shouldn't be surprised when it doesn't behave like one.

kinabalu said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The cruel, unfair and heartless agony of penalties are the exact reason they should be retained

Such merciless drama

Not this again. You need to take a hard look inside yourself. Make sure you're truly ok with what you see.

That said, I was fine with this shootout since it went the way I wanted.

I'm with you. (Well, on the implication that penalties are bad, not on the implication that Leon is somehow morally suspect for liking them.)

But from what I know of people who like football, the capriciousness and injustice of the sport is part of the attraction. I like rugby and test cricket: very hard sports to win by luck. Sports where if you break the rules, and are caught breaking the rules, the outcome is always worse than if you don't break the rules. Sports where, in short, you can see some sort of justice.
But you suggest to football fans ways in which their sport could be improved in ways to better match the outcome to how the game is played and they look at you blankly. Because by doing so you're missing the point: the sheer capriciousness of football is, for many, part of the attraction. That's just how it is. Leon uses the word 'drama'. Now personally I don't really want drama. (I don't like drama, in this or any other context. I like to watch a sporting contest in which the best team or individuals win. I don't really want personality to come into it. I don't want back stories. There is actual made-up drama for all that, and I don't want that either. I am, however, quite happy for humour to come into it. If something funny happens, that's great.) But many football fans genuinely do want drama. And thus, sadly, we're stuck with the penalty shoot out.

Nick Hornby said the absolute best way for your team to win a football match is a last second winner against the play that furthermore should have been disallowed.

I get that sentiment but I don't really share it. Maybe because I don't have a club team in my blood. So not a proper fan, I guess, although I do like football and esp these big international tournaments.

Nick Hornby is a good writer who is tediously sentimental about football. Though of all things it’s ok to be tediously sentimental about, sport is a fair candidate.

Ghedebrav said:

solarflare said:

Ghedebrav said:

turbotubbs said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The cruel, unfair and heartless agony of penalties are the exact reason they should be retained

Such merciless drama

Not this again. You need to take a hard look inside yourself. Make sure you're truly ok with what you see.

That said, I was fine with this shootout since it went the way I wanted.

I'm with you. (Well, on the implication that penalties are bad, not on the implication that Leon is somehow morally suspect for liking them.)

But from what I know of people who like football, the capriciousness and injustice of the sport is part of the attraction. I like rugby and test cricket: very hard sports to win by luck. Sports where if you break the rules, and are caught breaking the rules, the outcome is always worse than if you don't break the rules. Sports where, in short, you can see some sort of justice.
But you suggest to football fans ways in which their sport could be improved in ways to better match the outcome to how the game is played and they look at you blankly. Because by doing so you're missing the point: the sheer capriciousness of football is, for many, part of the attraction. That's just how it is. Leon uses the word 'drama'. Now personally I don't really want drama. (I don't like drama, in this or any other context. I like to watch a sporting contest in which the best team or individuals win. I don't really want personality to come into it. I don't want back stories. There is actual made-up drama for all that, and I don't want that either. I am, however, quite happy for humour to come into it. If something funny happens, that's great.) But many football fans genuinely do want drama. And thus, sadly, we're stuck with the penalty shoot out.

The issue with penalties for me is that it divides sides based on just one tiny aspect of the game. Penalties are not actually that common in football. It’s quite common that teams will only be awarded a few penalties in a given season, in single figures. Why then is this chosen to be the way to resolve games?
Because it’s simple, and you can count the goals.
I’d much rather the game was decided in real play, and have suggested combining the golden goal (next goal wins) with a gradual reduction of players on the pitch, say one player each every 5 minutes. You wouldn’t get much past 7 vs 7 before someone scored with the extra space. And the goal would be from open play, not a penalty.
But what do I know.

Broadcasters need to know a definite cutoff point though. And fans need to go home and stuff, boring practical things like being able to make the train or whatever. The game needs to stop.

Penalties strike me as being a brilliantly dramatic way to finish a match tbh. It’s always much-watch. Unfair? Dunno. It seems as fair a way as any other, if a two teams can play for 120 mins and still not break deadlock.

Adopt the @turbotubbs suggestion as the extra time format and then if that still hasn't worked at the end of a defined ET period, then do penalties.

Jesus, might actually make extra time interesting.

The Golden Goal didn’t really work though. Maybe the taking-players-off thing would, but there again, I don’t know how that’s any fairer. There isn’t a perfect answer, I don’t think.

It’s fairer because it’s still football, not just penalty kicks. Passing, movement, tackling etc.

FrancisUrquhart said:

Lets hope this game is a tad better standard than Solihull Motors vs Boreham Wood.....

Solihull Moors, Francis. There's no 't'.

Cookie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Lets hope this game is a tad better standard than Solihull Motors vs Boreham Wood.....

Solihull Moors, Francis. There's no 't'.

Like Sutton Coldfield, Solihull pretends to be posh Birmingham, but we all know the truth.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cookie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Lets hope this game is a tad better standard than Solihull Motors vs Boreham Wood.....

Solihull Moors, Francis. There's no 't'.

Like Sutton Coldfield, Solihull pretends to be posh Birmingham, but we all know the truth.

Do you mean Royal Sutton Coldfield?

Nutzoid goal from Portugal there. Absolute thunderbastard.

Ghedebrav said:

kinabalu said:

Cookie said:

kinabalu said:

Leon said:

The cruel, unfair and heartless agony of penalties are the exact reason they should be retained

Such merciless drama

Not this again. You need to take a hard look inside yourself. Make sure you're truly ok with what you see.

That said, I was fine with this shootout since it went the way I wanted.

I'm with you. (Well, on the implication that penalties are bad, not on the implication that Leon is somehow morally suspect for liking them.)

But from what I know of people who like football, the capriciousness and injustice of the sport is part of the attraction. I like rugby and test cricket: very hard sports to win by luck. Sports where if you break the rules, and are caught breaking the rules, the outcome is always worse than if you don't break the rules. Sports where, in short, you can see some sort of justice.
But you suggest to football fans ways in which their sport could be improved in ways to better match the outcome to how the game is played and they look at you blankly. Because by doing so you're missing the point: the sheer capriciousness of football is, for many, part of the attraction. That's just how it is. Leon uses the word 'drama'. Now personally I don't really want drama. (I don't like drama, in this or any other context. I like to watch a sporting contest in which the best team or individuals win. I don't really want personality to come into it. I don't want back stories. There is actual made-up drama for all that, and I don't want that either. I am, however, quite happy for humour to come into it. If something funny happens, that's great.) But many football fans genuinely do want drama. And thus, sadly, we're stuck with the penalty shoot out.

Nick Hornby said the absolute best way for your team to win a football match is a last second winner against the play that furthermore should have been disallowed.

I get that sentiment but I don't really share it. Maybe because I don't have a club team in my blood. So not a proper fan, I guess, although I do like football and esp these big international tournaments.

Nick Hornby is a good writer who is tediously sentimental about football. Though of all things it’s ok to be tediously sentimental about, sport is a fair candidate.

Good but crowd pleasing and sentimental is a pretty accurate description of his writing in general, I'd say.

Gallowgate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cookie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Lets hope this game is a tad better standard than Solihull Motors vs Boreham Wood.....

Solihull Moors, Francis. There's no 't'.

Like Sutton Coldfield, Solihull pretends to be posh Birmingham, but we all know the truth.

Do you mean Royal Sutton Coldfield?

Nah, it's a part of Birmingham, it has an 0121 area code.

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.

It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.

And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.

Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.

There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.

Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.

Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.

One minor virtue of Johnson is that he himself clearly detested stodgy public reports and endeavoured to make them well written.

Only occasionally this tipped into flippancy.

Check out the London Plans during his time as Mayor and compare with the dead prose - and hand - of Sadiq Khan.

OT Stack Overflow has announced a temporary ban on ChatGPT because it gets things wrong.

The primary problem is that while the answers which ChatGPT produces have a high rate of being incorrect, they typically look like they might be good and the answers are very easy to produce.
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/421831/temporary-policy-chatgpt-is-banned

kinabalu said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

DougSeal said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Driver said:

Carnyx said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Fppt on the constitution

HYUFD said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

As I frequently reheat and serve on PB, my constitutional settlement for solving all indyrefs, past present or future, is thus. A new 'Council of the Isles', comprising the leaders of Scotland, England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the UK, should be formed. The council would not originate legislation, but it would vote on, and have the power to veto, key matters like major infrastructure investment, military commitments, foreign policy changes, and other important matters currently reserved to Westminster or exercised by the PM using Royal prerogative. If voted down, the UK Government would have to prepare new proposals. The UK Government would essentially have to carry with it England, and at least one of Wales, Scotland, and NI. If the leaders of those three nations voted against, they could veto the UK PM. That would work. Thank you and good night.

You can't have a veto over UK foreign policy or defence policy, no Federal nation would allow its regions or states or provinces to veto its foreign and defence policy in such a way. Germany doesn't, the US doesn't, Australia and India and Canada don't.

The devolved Parliaments are there to run domestic policy in Scotland, Wales and NI not change foreign policy

That may be so, but those federal states are not collections of historical nations as ours is. Besides, the Council would not change foreign policy, it would have a veto over significant changes. So if a change proposed by the UK PM/parliament were vetoed, it would be maintaining the status quo, not changing anything. Thinking about the Iraq war, Blair would in theory have had to convince the home nations, and he probably would have convinced England, meaning he would need one other of Scotland, Wales or NI to do it. If he had succeeded, the decision to go to war would have had greater validity; if he had failed, so much the better. At the moment it is far too easy for powerful nations to exert influence over the UK Prime Minister's foreign policy decisions, and that is a weakness of the system not a strength.

They are sovereign nations just as we are. If the UK PM and Parliament is not sovereign over even its own foreign policy and defence then in effect it has ceased to be a sovereign nation anyway.

Technically of course the PM does not need Parliamentary sovereignty to go to war at all, he or she has executive privilege on behalf of the Crown. He might ask Parliament to give it greater validity but he certainly has no obligation to ask for it and certainly not devolved Parliaments either

Your description of the current status quo is correct, but this merely underlines the problem. The UK Prime Minister has the power to plunge the nation into economic, social and even physical jeopardy. Yes, he can get parliamentary backing, but parliament will always reflect the dominance of England in population. The problem with this is that the concept of nationhood in the home nations (as opposed to a strong regional identity) cannot be put back into the box. Brexit is possibly the last big constitutional change (bar rejoin) that the UK Government can plausibly impose against the prevailing opinion in Scotland - there will have to be a way of recognising Scotland's (and the rest's) nationhood constitutionally, whilst also moving forward on the big issues of the day as a unified group.

There is, Holyrood which already runs most Scottish domestic policy.

If it runs most Scottish foreign and defence policy too then the UK is effectively over anyway

It would not 'run' 'Scottish' foreign and defence policy, it would have a single vote in 5 on a committee that would have the power to veto important UK Government decisions on foreign and defence policy. As would England, Wales, and NI, and of course the UK Government itself. The results of that vote could not then be disputed (for example by Nicola) as it would be clear that her Celtic friends were on the other side of the debate. So there would be a clear UK policy, passed and rubber-stamped by all the historical nations comprising the UK. No more carping, excuses, 'dragged against her will' etc.

Hmm. Mulling over. Is it quite logical to give the UKG a vote as well as England, given the near-equivalence in practice?

A prerequisite would surely be giving England the government it sorely needs.

Quite, though it seems like the Conservative Party don't agree, 12 years on. They prefer to conflate Westminster and the English Parliament.

Nor do the Labour Party, based on Sir Keir's speech yesterday. Though at least neither uses "Westminster" as a dog whistle for "England", unlike the SNP.

Only in your imagination. It doesn't matter who it is - would be the same if it was a bunch of Vogons.

It should be truth universally acknowledged that those who whine about SNP ‘Westminster’ dog whistles are invariably serial bleaters about ‘Brussels’.

The annoying thing is the instant assumption that a wish for Scottish independence is necessarily somehow racist, as if someone's rights to empire were being traduced.

It's not necessarily racist.

But some of it is driven by racism.

And the SNP foster and benefit from that element.

Excellent evideence against that is that the party has a very large component of English incomers for independence. They have their own group.

“English Scots for Yes”? They always get trotted out as support for this tired tripe. A group so massive and committed they didn’t even renew their own website domain, yet they still get trotted out as some form of proof of the vibrant “inclusivity” of this specific form of nationalism.

https://englishscotsforyes.org/

I'm 100% in favour of Scottish Independence, but I wouldn't join a group over it, as I think its a matter for the Scots to determine democratically at their own elections.

They were talking about English residents of Scotland - ie with a vote up there.

Oh, well if they're in Scotland then they're eligible to vote. If I was living in Scotland, I'd be voting Yes. 🤷‍♂️

Are Portugal better without Ronaldo ?

Driver said:

SandyRentool said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.

Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.

Did the police scramble an armed response team to apprehend the assailant?

They are now letting him simmer in a cell, before seeing if he cracks under interrogation.

Or perhaps they could try and recruit him into the force - poacher turned gamekeeper.

Was it his own idea, or was he egged on by someone else?

He should count himself lucky that there's no chance of being fried for treason.

I’m sure they would whisk him away to safety

Portugal were the team I decided to back to win the tournament at 14/1, before the first game on 20th November. It'll be interesting to see what those odds are like after this match.

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.

It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.

And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.

Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.

There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.

Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.

Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.

Gordon Brown, surely? Hardly a surprise that anything he's involved with is turgid and dull,

Gallowgate said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Cookie said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Lets hope this game is a tad better standard than Solihull Motors vs Boreham Wood.....

Solihull Moors, Francis. There's no 't'.

Like Sutton Coldfield, Solihull pretends to be posh Birmingham, but we all know the truth.

Do you mean Royal Sutton Coldfield?

“North Erdington”

Cookie said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Leon said:

Seriously tho. The case of Daniel Shaver. Should not be forgotten. Unspeakable

You've gone full woke as only Wokistas worry about police brutality.

The video of Shaver's cold-blooded, sadistic murder is one of the worst things I have ever seen

The copper who gunned him down for lolz had "YOU'RE FUCKED" written on his assault rifle

Perhaps this kind of thing might make you understand why certain attitudes you charmingly describe as “woke”, notably BLM given the disproportionate amount this happens to people of colour, take root?

I was under the impression that it doesn't happen disproportionately to ethnic minorities, once you take into account demographics?

I can only point to this paper -

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1821204116

Abstract -

Police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in the United States. Over the life course, about 1 in every 1,000 black men can expect to be killed by police. Risk of being killed by police peaks between the ages of 20 y and 35 y for men and women and for all racial and ethnic groups. Black women and men and American Indian and Alaska Native women and men are significantly more likely than white women and men to be killed by police. Latino men are also more likely to be killed by police than are white men.

Gardenwalker said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

I’ve finally read - Ok “skimmed with intent” - the 155 page on reform of UK governance.

It is far too long and convoluted, which is never usually a sign of clear thinking. The prose of leaden bureaucratese. I think there are pointers here to what a Labour administration will be like.

And there are really three topics in here, one on devolution, one on standards in public life, and one on the House of Lords. This ought to have been three separate reports.

Nevertheless, overall this is a serious piece of work, that sets the right direction. Some of this stuff is urgent now, and the report spells out how badly the Tories have bankrupted not just the fiscal condition but also the administrative competence of the country.

There are no obviously bonkers proposals, and many very good ones. I see nothing in here to fear, and much to be welcomed.

Fairly typical of Starmer to make it so stodgy and turgid.

Lawyers will lawyer I suppose.

One minor virtue of Johnson is that he himself clearly detested stodgy public reports and endeavoured to make them well written.

Only occasionally this tipped into flippancy.

Check out the London Plans during his time as Mayor and compare with the dead prose - and hand - of Sadiq Khan.

On a similar note, I hope Tory MPs are hanging their heads in shame tonight.

Sunak is rudderless. The govt keeps proposing policy and then caving.

What does it stand for? A bigger state and being 'grown up' - or pessimistic, as some call it.

Might as well hand over the keys now.

Warnock by 4 - 6 points.

Ghedebrav said:

StillWaters said:

Driver said:

SandyRentool said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

A man has been arrested on suspicion of common assault after an egg was reportedly thrown in the direction of the King.

Bedfordshire Police said a man in his 20s was detained and is in custody.

Did the police scramble an armed response team to apprehend the assailant?

They are now letting him simmer in a cell, before seeing if he cracks under interrogation.

Or perhaps they could try and recruit him into the force - poacher turned gamekeeper.

Was it his own idea, or was he egged on by someone else?

He should count himself lucky that there's no chance of being fried for treason.

I’m sure they would whisk him away to safety

He’ll soldier on regardless.

I think when it goes to court he'll get oeuf.