I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a period, in the 1970's and 1980's when US cities were portrayed in drama as dystopian. People moved into attractive suburbs and exurbs. Then, that all faded away. But, now it's all back. The Republican Party is largely mad, and the Democrats contain many elements that are mad.
Yes, I recall FORT APACHE: THE BRONX
NYC was fucking terrifying in about 1985, I know this coz I spent a fair amount of time there. If you had to walk from somewhere to somewhere you were given strict instructions as to how to avoid THIS street or THAT street and THAT corner, and as for Alphabet City oh no no no
Yet this renewed declined seems much more systemic, and hard-to-reverse. A Rudy Giuliani promising to fix broken windows is not going to solve Fentanyl, for example.
I predict we will see hardcore autocratic quasi-Fascist governance which starts shooting druggies, and that's that. People will vote for that, if the alternative is absolute anarchy
See El Salvador. That's the future for America. And it works, in its own way
"El Salvador’s massive new prison and the strongman behind it, explained President Nayib Bukele promised to end gang violence. It may come at the expense of human and civil rights."
"President Nayib Bukele’s approval rating is consistently over 75%; his approval is the highest any Salvadoran president has ever maintained while in office. Bukele is regarded as one of the world leaders with high domestic support; he has maintained an approval rating of over 75 percent since taking office on June 1, 2019"
WC snooker starts Saturday. There has long been a suspicion that the hordes of talented young Chinese underperform at big moments. There has also been an idea as to why. A certain dark influence player, with a track record of violent, controlling behaviour has been taken out of the equation and identified as the ringleader in the current match fixing scandal. Several highly talented Chinese are currently suspended. However. In qualifying, the ones who aren't banned, are finally freed up to play to their potential at big moments. Half the qualifiers for the Crucible have been decided tonight. (Other half tomorrow).
Si Jiahui (20), Wu Yize (19) and Fan Zhengyi (22) have qualified and will be seriously overpriced assuming a non fixed match whoever they play in the first round. (We don't know the draw yet). But they are all ranked way lower than their ability. In addition, the winner of Xu Si (25) v Pang Junxu (23) will qualify tomorrow. They'll be the same. For context with those ages. The average age of the Top 16 is over 40.
Question for the car nerds on here, looking to get a city run around for my wife, it's got to be automatic, small and be able to take two children's car seats comfortably.
I'm looking at the Audi A1/A3 is there some glaring issue with it that I should avoid and get something else?
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
I don't buy the story. What exactly are 50 UK special forces doing?
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a period, in the 1970's and 1980's when US cities were portrayed in drama as dystopian. People moved into attractive suburbs and exurbs. Then, that all faded away. But, now it's all back. The Republican Party is largely mad, and the Democrats contain many elements that are mad.
Yes, I recall FORT APACHE: THE BRONX
NYC was fucking terrifying in about 1985, I know this coz I spent a fair amount of time there. If you had to walk from somewhere to somewhere you were given strict instructions as to how to avoid THIS street or THAT street and THAT corner, and as for Alphabet City oh no no no
Yet this renewed declined seems much more systemic, and hard-to-reverse. A Rudy Giuliani promising to fix broken windows is not going to solve Fentanyl, for example.
I predict we will see hardcore autocratic quasi-Fascist governance which starts shooting druggies, and that's that. People will vote for that, if the alternative is absolute anarchy
See El Salvador. That's the future for America. And it works, in its own way
"El Salvador’s massive new prison and the strongman behind it, explained President Nayib Bukele promised to end gang violence. It may come at the expense of human and civil rights."
"President Nayib Bukele’s approval rating is consistently over 75%; his approval is the highest any Salvadoran president has ever maintained while in office. Bukele is regarded as one of the world leaders with high domestic support; he has maintained an approval rating of over 75 percent since taking office on June 1, 2019"
Migration for generalised political reasons rather than personal opportunities seems like a very niche activity.
@Gardenwalker should remember that despite his counsel of despair, hundreds of thousands of people are moving to the UK every year because they see opportunity here.
Sure, but better prospects than Eritrea isn't the greatest endorsement.
Migration for generalised political reasons rather than personal opportunities seems like a very niche activity.
@Gardenwalker should remember that despite his counsel of despair, hundreds of thousands of people are moving to the UK every year because they see opportunity here.
Sure, but better prospects than Eritrea isn't the greatest endorsement.
Better prospects than every country they passed through too. Or, at least, so they believe, or have been made to believe.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a period, in the 1970's and 1980's when US cities were portrayed in drama as dystopian. People moved into attractive suburbs and exurbs. Then, that all faded away. But, now it's all back. The Republican Party is largely mad, and the Democrats contain many elements that are mad.
Yes, I recall FORT APACHE: THE BRONX
NYC was fucking terrifying in about 1985, I know this coz I spent a fair amount of time there. If you had to walk from somewhere to somewhere you were given strict instructions as to how to avoid THIS street or THAT street and THAT corner, and as for Alphabet City oh no no no
Yet this renewed declined seems much more systemic, and hard-to-reverse. A Rudy Giuliani promising to fix broken windows is not going to solve Fentanyl, for example.
I predict we will see hardcore autocratic quasi-Fascist governance which starts shooting druggies, and that's that. People will vote for that, if the alternative is absolute anarchy
See El Salvador. That's the future for America. And it works, in its own way
"El Salvador’s massive new prison and the strongman behind it, explained President Nayib Bukele promised to end gang violence. It may come at the expense of human and civil rights."
"President Nayib Bukele’s approval rating is consistently over 75%; his approval is the highest any Salvadoran president has ever maintained while in office. Bukele is regarded as one of the world leaders with high domestic support; he has maintained an approval rating of over 75 percent since taking office on June 1, 2019"
You live in a brutal autocratic society with a thuggish leader not afraid to use force to impose his desired outcome
Random stranger approaches you in the street and engages in political chat
Do you say you support the president or not?
Well, yeah, and I would mean: YEAH
Coz he is doing an amazing job of bringing down El Salvador's hideous crime rates by being a fascistic c*nt and shooting a lot of people and shoving the rest into jails which are more like battery pig farms
"El Salvador murders plummet by over half in 2022 amid gang crackdown"
"The reduction in homicides is a result of the state of exception, because that number of criminals is no longer on the streets harming the population," Merino said.
Polls show a majority of Salvadorans approve of the crackdown, which has set up a military presence in neighborhoods considered at high risk of gang violence."
In the end people will VOTE for Fascists, if it makes them safe in an otherwise anarchic and violent society. That's the case. Mussolini was the only Italian leader to really get a brutal grip on the Mafia
Fastidious liberals who don't want this should really think a bit harder
Armenia and Azerbaijan are shooting each other again although the Armenians have acquired some Iranian drone tech so maybe they're a little more equal.
Seems like it will only escalate from here.
There is a grim irony that Christian Armenia is being provided with weapons by fundie Muslim Iran to shoot at the Islamic Azerbaijan over the mixed Muslim and Christian provinces of the latter.
Just shows how screwed up politics in the former Soviet bloc can still be.
Twas ever thus - the English Commonwealth, a protestant republic, went to war against the United Provinces, a protestant republic, and later would ally with Catholic monarchist France in another conflict.
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
Question for the car nerds on here, looking to get a city run around for my wife, it's got to be automatic, small and be able to take two children's car seats comfortably.
I'm looking at the Audi A1/A3 is there some glaring issue with it that I should avoid and get something else?
Be cautious around the brake discs, which are poor quality on VAG - also avoid main dealer servicing if possible, it is dire and expensive.
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
That lone Cloggie must be pretty tough.
Whilst I am sure their superiors would explain there were other considerations, it seems reasonable that he or she should be able to make a reasonable claim to be the hardest soldier in the Netherlands.
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
That lone Cloggie must be pretty tough.
He'll be providing the shkunk. So won't care much.
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The whole of our criminal justice system is based on "beyond reasonable doubt". "Balance of probabilities" is reserved for civil cases.
I don't think many people would like to face a criminal justice charge based on the balance of probabilities.
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
From what I gather from Russian sources pretty much all the fighting is being done by Nato troops, so those 100 people must be absolute killing machines.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a period, in the 1970's and 1980's when US cities were portrayed in drama as dystopian. People moved into attractive suburbs and exurbs. Then, that all faded away. But, now it's all back. The Republican Party is largely mad, and the Democrats contain many elements that are mad.
Yes, I recall FORT APACHE: THE BRONX
NYC was fucking terrifying in about 1985, I know this coz I spent a fair amount of time there. If you had to walk from somewhere to somewhere you were given strict instructions as to how to avoid THIS street or THAT street and THAT corner, and as for Alphabet City oh no no no
Yet this renewed declined seems much more systemic, and hard-to-reverse. A Rudy Giuliani promising to fix broken windows is not going to solve Fentanyl, for example.
I predict we will see hardcore autocratic quasi-Fascist governance which starts shooting druggies, and that's that. People will vote for that, if the alternative is absolute anarchy
See El Salvador. That's the future for America. And it works, in its own way
"El Salvador’s massive new prison and the strongman behind it, explained President Nayib Bukele promised to end gang violence. It may come at the expense of human and civil rights."
"President Nayib Bukele’s approval rating is consistently over 75%; his approval is the highest any Salvadoran president has ever maintained while in office. Bukele is regarded as one of the world leaders with high domestic support; he has maintained an approval rating of over 75 percent since taking office on June 1, 2019"
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
I don't buy the story. What exactly are 50 UK special forces doing?
You've probably got much better ideas than I do but training is perhaps the most obvious thing, especially with western kit. The Americans don't seem to be challenging the validity of the leak.
My problem with the story is that the easy implication, because there is no detail, is that these blokeys are tooled up and running about doing secret squirrel stuff. Unlikely. I mean looking at the countries, who sends one bloke? Who is he? James Bond or Superman?
Those numbers for training piece doesnt necessarily make sense either though, this conflict is dominated by conventional brigade and battalion level warfare, not exactly SOF niche. The main NATO cell that coordinates the effort in theater is sitting in Germany and whilst I have very little doubt that some kind of miltary presence is in-country, thats an awul lot of instructors just to train small arms & infantry tactics which the Ukrainians can do themselves or just ship people across the border and do it there.
I suspect its a liasion, co-ordination and targeting mission along with security detail for the same which isnt exactly big shit and 50 UKSF in that still seems large.
WC snooker starts Saturday. There has long been a suspicion that the hordes of talented young Chinese underperform at big moments. There has also been an idea as to why. A certain dark influence player, with a track record of violent, controlling behaviour has been taken out of the equation and identified as the ringleader in the current match fixing scandal. Several highly talented Chinese are currently suspended. However. In qualifying, the ones who aren't banned, are finally freed up to play to their potential at big moments. Half the qualifiers for the Crucible have been decided tonight. (Other half tomorrow).
Si Jiahui (20), Wu Yize (19) and Fan Zhengyi (22) have qualified and will be seriously overpriced assuming a non fixed match whoever they play in the first round. (We don't know the draw yet). But they are all ranked way lower than their ability. In addition, the winner of Xu Si (25) v Pang Junxu (23) will qualify tomorrow. They'll be the same. For context with those ages. The average age of the Top 16 is over 40.
Additionally. If any of them draw Ronnie O'Sullivan get on them. ROS has had a very poor season and is moaning about an elbow injury. He's not been great even before this. Done nowt at all this year. He's far more vulnerable early anyways. He tends to play himself in at the Crucible. There will be a super long (probably losing) price available. DYOR as ever.
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
I don't buy the story. What exactly are 50 UK special forces doing?
You've probably got much better ideas than I do but training is perhaps the most obvious thing, especially with western kit. The Americans don't seem to be challenging the validity of the leak.
My problem with the story is that the easy implication, because there is no detail, is that these blokeys are tooled up and running about doing secret squirrel stuff. Unlikely. I mean looking at the countries, who sends one bloke? Who is he? James Bond or Superman?
Those numbers for training piece doesnt necessarily make sense either though, this conflict is dominated by conventional brigade and battalion level warfare, not exactly SOF niche. The main NATO cell that coordinates the effort in theater is sitting in Germany and whilst I have very little doubt that some kind of miltary presence is in-country, thats an awul lot of instructors just to train small arms & infantry tactics which the Ukrainians can do themselves or just ship people across the border and do it there.
I suspect its a liasion, co-ordination and targeting mission along with security detail for the same which isnt exactly big shit and 50 UKSF in that still seems large.
I also forgot, diplomatic protection. Missions are open.
Miami was the most dangerous city in the United States in 1980. Now it's quite a long way down the list IIRC.
New Orleans is now the 8th most dangerous city on earth (by homicide rate). More dangerous than any city in Africa, and the first seven cities - ahead of Nawlins - are all Mexican shitholes mired in the cartel drug wars
For the supposedly richest nation on earth, and its "most famous tourist city", this is quite an astonishing statistic
Miami was the most dangerous city in the United States in 1980. Now it's quite a long way down the list IIRC.
New Orleans is now the 8th most dangerous city on earth (by homicide rate). More dangerous than any city in Africa, and the first seven cities - ahead of Nawlins - are all Mexican shitholes mired in the cartel drug wars
For the supposedly richest nation on earth, and its "most famous tourist city", this is quite an astonishing statistic
Bourbon Street smelt of shit every day I was in that town.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a period, in the 1970's and 1980's when US cities were portrayed in drama as dystopian. People moved into attractive suburbs and exurbs. Then, that all faded away. But, now it's all back. The Republican Party is largely mad, and the Democrats contain many elements that are mad.
Yes, I recall FORT APACHE: THE BRONX
NYC was fucking terrifying in about 1985, I know this coz I spent a fair amount of time there. If you had to walk from somewhere to somewhere you were given strict instructions as to how to avoid THIS street or THAT street and THAT corner, and as for Alphabet City oh no no no
Yet this renewed declined seems much more systemic, and hard-to-reverse. A Rudy Giuliani promising to fix broken windows is not going to solve Fentanyl, for example.
I predict we will see hardcore autocratic quasi-Fascist governance which starts shooting druggies, and that's that. People will vote for that, if the alternative is absolute anarchy
See El Salvador. That's the future for America. And it works, in its own way
"El Salvador’s massive new prison and the strongman behind it, explained President Nayib Bukele promised to end gang violence. It may come at the expense of human and civil rights."
"President Nayib Bukele’s approval rating is consistently over 75%; his approval is the highest any Salvadoran president has ever maintained while in office. Bukele is regarded as one of the world leaders with high domestic support; he has maintained an approval rating of over 75 percent since taking office on June 1, 2019"
You live in a brutal autocratic society with a thuggish leader not afraid to use force to impose his desired outcome
Random stranger approaches you in the street and engages in political chat
Do you say you support the president or not?
I say nothing and move on quietly.
You might get away with that
My point was that an opinion poll in an autocratic society might not give unbiased results
If you lived in arguably the most dangerous, homicidal nation in the Americas - El Salvador as was - and a fascist-y strong man came along and reduced the murder rate by half (and much other crime) and made your country no more dangerous than Canada, my guess is you would support him. It is puerile to suggest otherwise
"Beginning last March, Bukele launched a massive crackdown on gangs, more than doubling the tiny nation's prison population in the process. The result? The homicide rate in El Salvador has plunged to new lows. Murders last year (496) were down 57% from the year prior to a rate of 7.8 per 100,000. Washington, D.C.'s rate of 28.5 murders per 100,000 is far worse.
It hasn't been pretty how they got there. Bukele, a centrist businessman who came from neither El Salvador's rightist nor leftist political traditions, has been attacked by human rights groups for the brutality of his anti-gang campaign, the treatment of prisoners, and allegations that innocent people are being swept up with the guilty and charged either with gang membership or collaboration with gangs. But El Salvador's crackdown is insanely popular inside the country. It has given Bukele a nearly 90% approval rating. Nearly everyone inside El Salvador supports the crackdown because it has transformed that nation from a crime-ridden, violent hellscape into a livable place."
"It says that the UK is among a number of countries with special forces operating in Ukraine. According to the document, dated 23 March, the UK has the largest contingent (50), followed by Latvia (17), France (15), the US (14) and the Netherlands (1)."
That lone Cloggie must be pretty tough.
Whilst I am sure their superiors would explain there were other considerations, it seems reasonable that he or she should be able to make a reasonable claim to be the hardest soldier in the Netherlands.
Surely disqualified from that? Due to being in Ukraine
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a period, in the 1970's and 1980's when US cities were portrayed in drama as dystopian. People moved into attractive suburbs and exurbs. Then, that all faded away. But, now it's all back. The Republican Party is largely mad, and the Democrats contain many elements that are mad.
Yes, I recall FORT APACHE: THE BRONX
NYC was fucking terrifying in about 1985, I know this coz I spent a fair amount of time there. If you had to walk from somewhere to somewhere you were given strict instructions as to how to avoid THIS street or THAT street and THAT corner, and as for Alphabet City oh no no no
Yet this renewed declined seems much more systemic, and hard-to-reverse. A Rudy Giuliani promising to fix broken windows is not going to solve Fentanyl, for example.
I predict we will see hardcore autocratic quasi-Fascist governance which starts shooting druggies, and that's that. People will vote for that, if the alternative is absolute anarchy
See El Salvador. That's the future for America. And it works, in its own way
"El Salvador’s massive new prison and the strongman behind it, explained President Nayib Bukele promised to end gang violence. It may come at the expense of human and civil rights."
"President Nayib Bukele’s approval rating is consistently over 75%; his approval is the highest any Salvadoran president has ever maintained while in office. Bukele is regarded as one of the world leaders with high domestic support; he has maintained an approval rating of over 75 percent since taking office on June 1, 2019"
You live in a brutal autocratic society with a thuggish leader not afraid to use force to impose his desired outcome
Random stranger approaches you in the street and engages in political chat
Do you say you support the president or not?
It's also notable how brittle the success of these autocratic leaders seems to be.
Remember Fujimora in Peru? Enormously popular, got the gangs under control, cut crime... then power went to his head, and he ended up fleeing the country, before being dragged back for trial and imprisonment.
Indeed, the record of Strong Men leaders - long term - has been pretty shit.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a period, in the 1970's and 1980's when US cities were portrayed in drama as dystopian. People moved into attractive suburbs and exurbs. Then, that all faded away. But, now it's all back. The Republican Party is largely mad, and the Democrats contain many elements that are mad.
Yes, I recall FORT APACHE: THE BRONX
NYC was fucking terrifying in about 1985, I know this coz I spent a fair amount of time there. If you had to walk from somewhere to somewhere you were given strict instructions as to how to avoid THIS street or THAT street and THAT corner, and as for Alphabet City oh no no no
Yet this renewed declined seems much more systemic, and hard-to-reverse. A Rudy Giuliani promising to fix broken windows is not going to solve Fentanyl, for example.
I predict we will see hardcore autocratic quasi-Fascist governance which starts shooting druggies, and that's that. People will vote for that, if the alternative is absolute anarchy
See El Salvador. That's the future for America. And it works, in its own way
"El Salvador’s massive new prison and the strongman behind it, explained President Nayib Bukele promised to end gang violence. It may come at the expense of human and civil rights."
"President Nayib Bukele’s approval rating is consistently over 75%; his approval is the highest any Salvadoran president has ever maintained while in office. Bukele is regarded as one of the world leaders with high domestic support; he has maintained an approval rating of over 75 percent since taking office on June 1, 2019"
You live in a brutal autocratic society with a thuggish leader not afraid to use force to impose his desired outcome
Random stranger approaches you in the street and engages in political chat
Do you say you support the president or not?
I say nothing and move on quietly.
You might get away with that
My point was that an opinion poll in an autocratic society might not give unbiased results
If you lived in arguably the most dangerous, homicidal nation in the Americas - El Salvador as was - and a fascist-y strong man came along and reduced the murder rate by half (and much other crime) and made your country no more dangerous than Canada, my guess is you would support him. It is puerile to suggest otherwise
"Beginning last March, Bukele launched a massive crackdown on gangs, more than doubling the tiny nation's prison population in the process. The result? The homicide rate in El Salvador has plunged to new lows. Murders last year (496) were down 57% from the year prior to a rate of 7.8 per 100,000. Washington, D.C.'s rate of 28.5 murders per 100,000 is far worse.
It hasn't been pretty how they got there. Bukele, a centrist businessman who came from neither El Salvador's rightist nor leftist political traditions, has been attacked by human rights groups for the brutality of his anti-gang campaign, the treatment of prisoners, and allegations that innocent people are being swept up with the guilty and charged either with gang membership or collaboration with gangs. But El Salvador's crackdown is insanely popular inside the country. It has given Bukele a nearly 90% approval rating. Nearly everyone inside El Salvador supports the crackdown because it has transformed that nation from a crime-ridden, violent hellscape into a livable place."
Miami was the most dangerous city in the United States in 1980. Now it's quite a long way down the list IIRC.
New Orleans is now the 8th most dangerous city on earth (by homicide rate). More dangerous than any city in Africa, and the first seven cities - ahead of Nawlins - are all Mexican shitholes mired in the cartel drug wars
For the supposedly richest nation on earth, and its "most famous tourist city", this is quite an astonishing statistic
Bourbon Street smelt of shit every day I was in that town.
Shit. And vomit.
It's pretty unpleasant.
On the other hand, the National WW2 Museum is excellent. The food, especially once you leave the tourist spots is also great.
Miami was the most dangerous city in the United States in 1980. Now it's quite a long way down the list IIRC.
New Orleans is now the 8th most dangerous city on earth (by homicide rate). More dangerous than any city in Africa, and the first seven cities - ahead of Nawlins - are all Mexican shitholes mired in the cartel drug wars
For the supposedly richest nation on earth, and its "most famous tourist city", this is quite an astonishing statistic
Bourbon Street smelt of shit every day I was in that town.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a period, in the 1970's and 1980's when US cities were portrayed in drama as dystopian. People moved into attractive suburbs and exurbs. Then, that all faded away. But, now it's all back. The Republican Party is largely mad, and the Democrats contain many elements that are mad.
Yes, I recall FORT APACHE: THE BRONX
NYC was fucking terrifying in about 1985, I know this coz I spent a fair amount of time there. If you had to walk from somewhere to somewhere you were given strict instructions as to how to avoid THIS street or THAT street and THAT corner, and as for Alphabet City oh no no no
Yet this renewed declined seems much more systemic, and hard-to-reverse. A Rudy Giuliani promising to fix broken windows is not going to solve Fentanyl, for example.
I predict we will see hardcore autocratic quasi-Fascist governance which starts shooting druggies, and that's that. People will vote for that, if the alternative is absolute anarchy
See El Salvador. That's the future for America. And it works, in its own way
"El Salvador’s massive new prison and the strongman behind it, explained President Nayib Bukele promised to end gang violence. It may come at the expense of human and civil rights."
"President Nayib Bukele’s approval rating is consistently over 75%; his approval is the highest any Salvadoran president has ever maintained while in office. Bukele is regarded as one of the world leaders with high domestic support; he has maintained an approval rating of over 75 percent since taking office on June 1, 2019"
You live in a brutal autocratic society with a thuggish leader not afraid to use force to impose his desired outcome
Random stranger approaches you in the street and engages in political chat
Do you say you support the president or not?
It's also notable how brittle the success of these autocratic leaders seems to be.
Remember Fujimora in Peru? Enormously popular, got the gangs under control, cut crime... then power went to his head, and he ended up fleeing the country, before being dragged back for trial and imprisonment.
Indeed, the record of Strong Men leaders - long term - has been pretty shit.
Miami was the most dangerous city in the United States in 1980. Now it's quite a long way down the list IIRC.
New Orleans is now the 8th most dangerous city on earth (by homicide rate). More dangerous than any city in Africa, and the first seven cities - ahead of Nawlins - are all Mexican shitholes mired in the cartel drug wars
For the supposedly richest nation on earth, and its "most famous tourist city", this is quite an astonishing statistic
While there are a lot of claimants, but I believe St Louis, Missouri has claimed the prize for top murder spot in the US:
Miami was the most dangerous city in the United States in 1980. Now it's quite a long way down the list IIRC.
New Orleans is now the 8th most dangerous city on earth (by homicide rate). More dangerous than any city in Africa, and the first seven cities - ahead of Nawlins - are all Mexican shitholes mired in the cartel drug wars
For the supposedly richest nation on earth, and its "most famous tourist city", this is quite an astonishing statistic
While there are a lot of claimants, but I believe St Louis, Missouri has claimed the prize for top murder spot in the US:
Well, at least some areas are doing better, if not actually ok.
Although murder rates in US cities are extremely high compared to other countries, some cities are experiencing their lowest numbers of murders in years. Newark, New Jersey had 72 murders in 2017, down from 94 in 2016. New York City’s 300 murders in 2017 is the lowest number the city has had since the 1950s.
Miami was the most dangerous city in the United States in 1980. Now it's quite a long way down the list IIRC.
New Orleans is now the 8th most dangerous city on earth (by homicide rate). More dangerous than any city in Africa, and the first seven cities - ahead of Nawlins - are all Mexican shitholes mired in the cartel drug wars
For the supposedly richest nation on earth, and its "most famous tourist city", this is quite an astonishing statistic
Bourbon Street smelt of shit every day I was in that town.
Shit. And vomit.
It's pretty unpleasant.
On the other hand, the National WW2 Museum is excellent. The food, especially once you leave the tourist spots is also great.
The shit and vomit on Bourbon Street are from tourists. Only locals around are working at bars & restaurants. And cleaning up after drunken tourists.
As for New Orleans being a dangerous place to wander around in the wrong places, it was just like that, first time I saw the place, which was over a half-century ago. So hardly some startling new wages of woke.
Fact is, that the French Quarter, the Garden District and similar areas, are check-by-jowl with inner-city slums. And have been that way since Louis Armstrong was in short pants.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a period, in the 1970's and 1980's when US cities were portrayed in drama as dystopian. People moved into attractive suburbs and exurbs. Then, that all faded away. But, now it's all back. The Republican Party is largely mad, and the Democrats contain many elements that are mad.
Yes, I recall FORT APACHE: THE BRONX
NYC was fucking terrifying in about 1985, I know this coz I spent a fair amount of time there. If you had to walk from somewhere to somewhere you were given strict instructions as to how to avoid THIS street or THAT street and THAT corner, and as for Alphabet City oh no no no
Yet this renewed declined seems much more systemic, and hard-to-reverse. A Rudy Giuliani promising to fix broken windows is not going to solve Fentanyl, for example.
I predict we will see hardcore autocratic quasi-Fascist governance which starts shooting druggies, and that's that. People will vote for that, if the alternative is absolute anarchy
See El Salvador. That's the future for America. And it works, in its own way
"El Salvador’s massive new prison and the strongman behind it, explained President Nayib Bukele promised to end gang violence. It may come at the expense of human and civil rights."
"President Nayib Bukele’s approval rating is consistently over 75%; his approval is the highest any Salvadoran president has ever maintained while in office. Bukele is regarded as one of the world leaders with high domestic support; he has maintained an approval rating of over 75 percent since taking office on June 1, 2019"
You live in a brutal autocratic society with a thuggish leader not afraid to use force to impose his desired outcome
Random stranger approaches you in the street and engages in political chat
Do you say you support the president or not?
I say nothing and move on quietly.
You might get away with that
My point was that an opinion poll in an autocratic society might not give unbiased results
If you lived in arguably the most dangerous, homicidal nation in the Americas - El Salvador as was - and a fascist-y strong man came along and reduced the murder rate by half (and much other crime) and made your country no more dangerous than Canada, my guess is you would support him. It is puerile to suggest otherwise
"Beginning last March, Bukele launched a massive crackdown on gangs, more than doubling the tiny nation's prison population in the process. The result? The homicide rate in El Salvador has plunged to new lows. Murders last year (496) were down 57% from the year prior to a rate of 7.8 per 100,000. Washington, D.C.'s rate of 28.5 murders per 100,000 is far worse.
It hasn't been pretty how they got there. Bukele, a centrist businessman who came from neither El Salvador's rightist nor leftist political traditions, has been attacked by human rights groups for the brutality of his anti-gang campaign, the treatment of prisoners, and allegations that innocent people are being swept up with the guilty and charged either with gang membership or collaboration with gangs. But El Salvador's crackdown is insanely popular inside the country. It has given Bukele a nearly 90% approval rating. Nearly everyone inside El Salvador supports the crackdown because it has transformed that nation from a crime-ridden, violent hellscape into a livable place."
I do recognise the sort of people in the first paragraph, but I'm not so sure that Starmer doews need to upset them again and again. Janan Ganesh on the “soft left” https://ft.com/content/3e7a2c
Went to get my hair cut today. Gone bust and closed due to energy bills.
More likely they couldn’t attract the staff. Hair salons are a classic high fixed cost / share cropping model. Very vulnerable to staff shortages and overhead costs. Suspect that the hairdressers decided that a fixed £12-14 per hour at a supermarket was better than 70% of whatever they could charge for a haircut in your neck of the woods with no certainty that they would get the 10+ jobs a day that they would consistently need to be better off vs retail work.
"Ukraine war: Leak shows Western special forces on the ground
The UK is among a number of countries with military special forces operating inside Ukraine, according to one of dozens of documents leaked online. It confirms what has been the subject of quiet speculation for over a year. The leaked files, some marked "top secret", paint a detailed picture of the war in Ukraine, including sensitive details of Ukraine's preparations for a spring counter-offensive. The US government says it is investigating the source of the leak."
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
But in big-picture terms, GW isn't wrong, is he?
The UK is in a pickle in terms of national income and expenditure and has been for quite a while. And governments of whatever party have done a bad job of dealing with that pickle properly, in part because it's much easier to win elections by pretending that the problem is minor and can be solved by trivial public spending cuts (see diversity officers) or consuming seedcorn (see infrastructure, or the "let's spend it on our NHS" strand of Brexit).
And sadly, if you see yourself in a country that is on a road to Heck, and you can see structural reasons why it's set to go further down that road to Heck, why wouldn't someone wanting the best for themselves and those they love aim to live somewhere making better choices on a national level?
It comes over as a big sulk. He was furious over Brexit, so he left the UK for somewhere with bigger social problems than the UK has.
The USA has a substantially higher GDP per head than we do, and much more powerful armed forces. If you're an American official, you can get to kick arse around the world, just as your British equivalent would, in the heyday of Empire. Those are by no means to be sniffed at as advantages.
As against that, average life expectancy is about four years lower than it is here, the homicide rate is about four times ours, one half of the country loathes the other half, social mobility has virtually dried up, and the benefits of economic growth now go to about 10-20% of the population. To be poor, and increasingly to be average, in the US is no joke. And, the police are militarised to a degree undreamed of here.
The notion that that the UK pre 2016 was a great place to live, and post 2016 is a hellhole, is just bollocks.
Also, if you visit the USA, it actually *feels* different, in quite a startling way, to how it felt in say 2005 or 2012
Much more menacing, aggressive, unhappy. The big cities do not feel like the "the future", not at all. To a European, they are positively scary. God knows what an East Asian - brought up in a truly safe, crime free society - feels like when they encounter Chicago or LA or New Orleans
There was a period, in the 1970's and 1980's when US cities were portrayed in drama as dystopian. People moved into attractive suburbs and exurbs. Then, that all faded away. But, now it's all back. The Republican Party is largely mad, and the Democrats contain many elements that are mad.
Yes, I recall FORT APACHE: THE BRONX
NYC was fucking terrifying in about 1985, I know this coz I spent a fair amount of time there. If you had to walk from somewhere to somewhere you were given strict instructions as to how to avoid THIS street or THAT street and THAT corner, and as for Alphabet City oh no no no
Yet this renewed declined seems much more systemic, and hard-to-reverse. A Rudy Giuliani promising to fix broken windows is not going to solve Fentanyl, for example.
I predict we will see hardcore autocratic quasi-Fascist governance which starts shooting druggies, and that's that. People will vote for that, if the alternative is absolute anarchy
See El Salvador. That's the future for America. And it works, in its own way
"El Salvador’s massive new prison and the strongman behind it, explained President Nayib Bukele promised to end gang violence. It may come at the expense of human and civil rights."
"President Nayib Bukele’s approval rating is consistently over 75%; his approval is the highest any Salvadoran president has ever maintained while in office. Bukele is regarded as one of the world leaders with high domestic support; he has maintained an approval rating of over 75 percent since taking office on June 1, 2019"
You live in a brutal autocratic society with a thuggish leader not afraid to use force to impose his desired outcome
Random stranger approaches you in the street and engages in political chat
Do you say you support the president or not?
It's also notable how brittle the success of these autocratic leaders seems to be.
Remember Fujimora in Peru? Enormously popular, got the gangs under control, cut crime... then power went to his head, and he ended up fleeing the country, before being dragged back for trial and imprisonment.
Indeed, the record of Strong Men leaders - long term - has been pretty shit.
Miami was the most dangerous city in the United States in 1980. Now it's quite a long way down the list IIRC.
New Orleans is now the 8th most dangerous city on earth (by homicide rate). More dangerous than any city in Africa, and the first seven cities - ahead of Nawlins - are all Mexican shitholes mired in the cartel drug wars
For the supposedly richest nation on earth, and its "most famous tourist city", this is quite an astonishing statistic
While there are a lot of claimants, but I believe St Louis, Missouri has claimed the prize for top murder spot in the US:
Miami was the most dangerous city in the United States in 1980. Now it's quite a long way down the list IIRC.
New Orleans is now the 8th most dangerous city on earth (by homicide rate). More dangerous than any city in Africa, and the first seven cities - ahead of Nawlins - are all Mexican shitholes mired in the cartel drug wars
For the supposedly richest nation on earth, and its "most famous tourist city", this is quite an astonishing statistic
While there are a lot of claimants, but I believe St Louis, Missouri has claimed the prize for top murder spot in the US:
I do recognise the sort of people in the first paragraph, but I'm not so sure that Starmer doews need to upset them again and again. Janan Ganesh on the “soft left” https://ft.com/content/3e7a2c
I agree, relentlessly upsetting supporters tends to give the public the impression of a hopelessly divided party. Also, most people don't necessarily demand moderation in the sense of "never kissed a socialist" - they demand steady competence.
Miami was the most dangerous city in the United States in 1980. Now it's quite a long way down the list IIRC.
New Orleans is now the 8th most dangerous city on earth (by homicide rate). More dangerous than any city in Africa, and the first seven cities - ahead of Nawlins - are all Mexican shitholes mired in the cartel drug wars
For the supposedly richest nation on earth, and its "most famous tourist city", this is quite an astonishing statistic
While there are a lot of claimants, but I believe St Louis, Missouri has claimed the prize for top murder spot in the US:
Miami was the most dangerous city in the United States in 1980. Now it's quite a long way down the list IIRC.
New Orleans is now the 8th most dangerous city on earth (by homicide rate). More dangerous than any city in Africa, and the first seven cities - ahead of Nawlins - are all Mexican shitholes mired in the cartel drug wars
For the supposedly richest nation on earth, and its "most famous tourist city", this is quite an astonishing statistic
While there are a lot of claimants, but I believe St Louis, Missouri has claimed the prize for top murder spot in the US:
Someone posted this video a few days ago. I love the bit where he says "This might be the best thing I've ever eaten. I'm not joking". Comedian Michael Spicer with "Half of British Television Always Starts Like This".
Question for the car nerds on here, looking to get a city run around for my wife, it's got to be automatic, small and be able to take two children's car seats comfortably.
I'm looking at the Audi A1/A3 is there some glaring issue with it that I should avoid and get something else?
A1 is the VAG MQB platform so it's essentially a VW Polo/Seat Ibiza with a hefty premium for no reason beyond the brand.
It'll probably be alright but a Hyundai i20 will be far better value and probably better quality. Indo-Pacific pivot remember, stop being a FBPE drone.
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
The logic is that these "collateral" matters confuse and distract the jury. They are there to determine whether the woman was raped on date X by Mr Y. Sometimes, often, these allegations of both prior sex and post sex are just that and you could end up with a trial about 2 or 3 events rather than 1. But in my case there was a text asking for exactly that. And the jury were not allowed to see it. And they convicted.
I am extremely uncomfortable with this.
Can the conviction be appealed?
Very unlikely. It was in accordance with the current law. The judge did not misdirect himself or the jury. Jury decisions can't really be appealed on the facts and, to be honest, it could not be said that the decision was in any way irrational on the information that they had. It is the law that needs correcting, our Scottish courts have got themselves into a cul-de-sac.
Someone posted this video a few days ago. I love the bit where he says "This might be the best thing I've ever eaten. I'm not joking". Comedian Michael Spicer with "Half of British Television Always Starts Like This".
That would have been the perfect spoof if they hadn't Woked it up with the "white middle-aged male" dig, which is always the tale tale sign of a liberal leper thinking they're being edgy.
Joanna Lumley and Romesh Ranganathan also do this, amongst many others.
Someone posted this video a few days ago. I love the bit where he says "This might be the best thing I've ever eaten. I'm not joking". Comedian Michael Spicer with "Half of British Television Always Starts Like This".
That would have been the perfect spoof if they hadn't Woked it up with the "white middle-aged male" dig, which is always the tale tale sign of a liberal leper thinking they're being edgy.
Joanna Lumley and Romesh Ranganathan also do this, amongst many others.
Charlie Brooker had the sense to hire a lady to do his spoof version of a travelling around show. All hail Philomena Cunk!
I do recognise the sort of people in the first paragraph, but I'm not so sure that Starmer doews need to upset them again and again. Janan Ganesh on the “soft left” https://ft.com/content/3e7a2c
I like Ganesh but I think he's turning into one of those boring commentators whose own personal dislikes are a bit too obvious.
Question for the car nerds on here, looking to get a city run around for my wife, it's got to be automatic, small and be able to take two children's car seats comfortably.
I'm looking at the Audi A1/A3 is there some glaring issue with it that I should avoid and get something else?
A1 is the VAG MQB platform so it's essentially a VW Polo/Seat Ibiza with a hefty premium for no reason beyond the brand.
It'll probably be alright but a Hyundai i20 will be far better value and probably better quality. Indo-Pacific pivot remember, stop being a FBPE drone.
I can second the i20 recommendation. Mrs J has one, and it's a lovely little runabout. Fits two car seats in the back easily.
I do recognise the sort of people in the first paragraph, but I'm not so sure that Starmer doews need to upset them again and again. Janan Ganesh on the “soft left” https://ft.com/content/3e7a2c
I like Ganesh but I think he's turning into one of those boring commentators whose own personal dislikes are a bit too obvious.
I know it's obvious but the whole point about the attack approach Labour is using is that it's the only one they can use that doesn't commit them to spending money - because there is no money available to spend on Justice.
And that's the problem with Labour. There should be money to spend, but they're afraid to raise it. And if they won't redistribute, what's the effing point in them?
I don't think there is money at the moment.
We come back to the question for which I can't find the answer - Why are we paying more in tax then ever before yet our public sector / services are so dire...
Because thanks to population ageing more and more of our tax revenue is spent on looking after the elderly. Plus thanks to 15 years of below trend growth we are poorer and have less money to go around. We are in a real hole economically speaking.
And it is in no party’s interests to even acknowledge the hole.
Which is why I keep coming back to my advice to immigrate.
Just because you are looking for social validation of your own decision
Nope. I genuinely believe it. Not for everyone of course, but for many.
Surely it should be emigrate not immigrate or is the suggestion for more people to come here and make it even worse.
Ryley denied that she or her husband were racist. “I’m not a racist in any form.”
She confirmed that her husband had been photographed in a T-shirt from the far-right group Britain First. She said: “I don’t think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.”
This is not exactly a novel observation, but I was slightly taken aback by the BBC reporting Trump's obvious lies about the circumstances of his arrest as a 'revelation'. And that was the top headline on R4 news earlier this morning.
Ryley denied that she or her husband were racist. “I’m not a racist in any form.”
She confirmed that her husband had been photographed in a T-shirt from the far-right group Britain First. She said: “I don’t think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.”
Is there any significant difference between the Russian army and ISIS - other than they have more tanks ?
Russian telegram channels spread a video showing a Ukrainian soldier being beheaded live. I will not share this video for ethical reasons. Only immoral criminals can do this, not the official army. This is a violation not just of the Geneva Conventions, but of any law of humanity. https://twitter.com/MamedovGyunduz/status/1645900034775367681
Oh, and their boss has the chair of the UN security council.
Ryley denied that she or her husband were racist. “I’m not a racist in any form.”
She confirmed that her husband had been photographed in a T-shirt from the far-right group Britain First. She said: “I don’t think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.”
One day, I was in the office at work, writing something, and I thought to myself how nice the pen I was using was. I wondered where it had come from and I took a closer link. The pen had writing on it, but in Cyrillic. My Cyrillic is rusty and the lettering small, but I sounded out the letters one by one and it turned out the pen was promoting a hardline Serb nationalist party in Republika Srpska, the Serb part of Bosnia. Pretty unpleasant chaps, who shielded war criminals. I have no idea how that pen got to my office, but that’s what happens with pens. So, if this Chris had been spotted with a Britain First pen, I might have some sympathy.
Is there any significant difference between the Russian army and ISIS - other than they have more tanks ?
Russian telegram channels spread a video showing a Ukrainian soldier being beheaded live. I will not share this video for ethical reasons. Only immoral criminals can do this, not the official army. This is a violation not just of the Geneva Conventions, but of any law of humanity. https://twitter.com/MamedovGyunduz/status/1645900034775367681
He's talking bullshit. The issue is the widespread criminality within the official Russian army including the Wagner group. Well, OK, one among many issues but in this context that's the pertinent one.
As for your question on Isis, they were considerably more effective than the Russian army. Not sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing tbh.
This is not exactly a novel observation, but I was slightly taken aback by the BBC reporting Trump's obvious lies about the circumstances of his arrest as a 'revelation'. And that was the top headline on R4 news earlier this morning.
They don't see it as their role to determine truth or facts, but to present the most engaging mix of opinion and bullshit to gain as much attention as possible.
Ryley denied that she or her husband were racist. “I’m not a racist in any form.”
She confirmed that her husband had been photographed in a T-shirt from the far-right group Britain First. She said: “I don’t think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.”
One day, I was in the office at work, writing something, and I thought to myself how nice the pen I was using was. I wondered where it had come from and I took a closer link. The pen had writing on it, but in Cyrillic. My Cyrillic is rusty and the lettering small, but I sounded out the letters one by one and it turned out the pen was promoting a hardline Serb nationalist party in Republika Srpska, the Serb part of Bosnia. Pretty unpleasant chaps, who shielded war criminals. I have no idea how that pen got to my office, but that’s what happens with pens. So, if this Chris had been spotted with a Britain First pen, I might have some sympathy.
But a T-shirt! For f***’s sake.
As I posted yesterday, I’ve worked in Grays and indeed was recently in hospital in the town. I’m not at all surprised!
Ryley denied that she or her husband were racist. “I’m not a racist in any form.”
She confirmed that her husband had been photographed in a T-shirt from the far-right group Britain First. She said: “I don’t think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.”
One day, I was in the office at work, writing something, and I thought to myself how nice the pen I was using was. I wondered where it had come from and I took a closer link. The pen had writing on it, but in Cyrillic. My Cyrillic is rusty and the lettering small, but I sounded out the letters one by one and it turned out the pen was promoting a hardline Serb nationalist party in Republika Srpska, the Serb part of Bosnia. Pretty unpleasant chaps, who shielded war criminals. I have no idea how that pen got to my office, but that’s what happens with pens. So, if this Chris had been spotted with a Britain First pen, I might have some sympathy.
But a T-shirt! For f***’s sake.
David Irving was asked during his failed libel case against Lipstadt and Penguin whether he had any links to Fascist organisations.
He said no.
Richard Rampton immediately pulled out a letter to Irving from a regional organiser of the BNP where he had been booked to appear at an event as a key party supporter.
Irving then said he didn't know at the time the correspondent was a member of the BNP and said he merely thought of him as somebody with 'right wing political views.'
The judge's exact words, expressed with some vigour, were, 'Mr Irving, come on, that letter is on the *stationery* of the British National Party!'
Having been very finely balanced all the way through, that tipped the case against Irving as it demonstrated to the judge that he was (a) a liar (b) a Fascist and (c) as mad as a box of frogs.
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
The logic is that these "collateral" matters confuse and distract the jury. They are there to determine whether the woman was raped on date X by Mr Y. Sometimes, often, these allegations of both prior sex and post sex are just that and you could end up with a trial about 2 or 3 events rather than 1. But in my case there was a text asking for exactly that. And the jury were not allowed to see it. And they convicted.
I am extremely uncomfortable with this.
Can the conviction be appealed?
Very unlikely. It was in accordance with the current law. The judge did not misdirect himself or the jury. Jury decisions can't really be appealed on the facts and, to be honest, it could not be said that the decision was in any way irrational on the information that they had. It is the law that needs correcting, our Scottish courts have got themselves into a cul-de-sac.
Would it have been different in England?
I don't know. An English lawyer on here should be able to tell you.
I don't know the Scottish case, but in principle don't think a non-custodial sentence is always inappropriate. That should be for the judge to decide.
Douglas Hurd famously said "Prison is an expensive way to make bad people worse" and pointed out that locking people up had only a short term effect. He was a rare Home Secretary who actually reduced the prison population.
The USA has a quarter of the world's prison population. Is it safer? Not from what is written upthread.
Someone posted this video a few days ago. I love the bit where he says "This might be the best thing I've ever eaten. I'm not joking". Comedian Michael Spicer with "Half of British Television Always Starts Like This".
That would have been the perfect spoof if they hadn't Woked it up with the "white middle-aged male" dig, which is always the tale tale sign of a liberal leper thinking they're being edgy.
Joanna Lumley and Romesh Ranganathan also do this, amongst many others.
You and Leon see woke in everything. It's funny because lots are middle aged white men who do these programmes. Lots aren't as well. Nothing wrong with that or these type of programmes, just funny taking the mickey out of the format.
People should chill and take offence less on both the woke and anti woke sides and enjoy the jokes. There are times to take offence and times when it is just a joke.
See the big issue of the day is whether you can wear your tiara at the coronation or not. Luckily I'm not invited as it would be a huge predicament for me.
On topic (and as usual, an excellent Cyclefree thread) the solution is to hose money at justice. It should be popular with the voters even in austere again times. And bring cases to trial in months as opposed to years surely has to help.
Whether that happens under a Labour government or not I do not know.
But there is the societal issue we're going to have to tackle as well. The right have tried to take us down this 'fear the ladycock!' rabbithole, where in very strident terms we're told that the fake trans person is the real threat to womanhood.
In reality almost every assault on a woman is done by a man. Men know this, don't want to face the issue, so scapegoats and excuses are made.
The way to tackle the incel idiocy and Tateism is to educate young men that women have rights too. If they want someone to have sex with them, they need to be attractive. That doesn't mean lets impose societal definitions of normal. But it does mean not being a whiny self-obsessed fuck.
This Trump bank run story. Its about as logical as the South Park story where to stop the time-travelling migrants taking their jobs, all the blue collar men decide they need to have a big gay orgy...
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
The logic is that these "collateral" matters confuse and distract the jury. They are there to determine whether the woman was raped on date X by Mr Y. Sometimes, often, these allegations of both prior sex and post sex are just that and you could end up with a trial about 2 or 3 events rather than 1. But in my case there was a text asking for exactly that. And the jury were not allowed to see it. And they convicted.
I am extremely uncomfortable with this.
Can the conviction be appealed?
Very unlikely. It was in accordance with the current law. The judge did not misdirect himself or the jury. Jury decisions can't really be appealed on the facts and, to be honest, it could not be said that the decision was in any way irrational on the information that they had. It is the law that needs correcting, our Scottish courts have got themselves into a cul-de-sac.
Would it have been different in England?
I don't know. An English lawyer on here should be able to tell you.
Ryley denied that she or her husband were racist. “I’m not a racist in any form.”
She confirmed that her husband had been photographed in a T-shirt from the far-right group Britain First. She said: “I don’t think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.”
One day, I was in the office at work, writing something, and I thought to myself how nice the pen I was using was. I wondered where it had come from and I took a closer link. The pen had writing on it, but in Cyrillic. My Cyrillic is rusty and the lettering small, but I sounded out the letters one by one and it turned out the pen was promoting a hardline Serb nationalist party in Republika Srpska, the Serb part of Bosnia. Pretty unpleasant chaps, who shielded war criminals. I have no idea how that pen got to my office, but that’s what happens with pens. So, if this Chris had been spotted with a Britain First pen, I might have some sympathy.
But a T-shirt! For f***’s sake.
Context is everything. Initially it looks like an overreaction by the police, but the t shirt incident implies otherwise and the end of the article is a big give away - in 2016 a Facebook post says they used to hang them in Mississippi. Hmmmm I wonder what that can mean? Obviously a completely innocent post.
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
The logic is that these "collateral" matters confuse and distract the jury. They are there to determine whether the woman was raped on date X by Mr Y. Sometimes, often, these allegations of both prior sex and post sex are just that and you could end up with a trial about 2 or 3 events rather than 1. But in my case there was a text asking for exactly that. And the jury were not allowed to see it. And they convicted.
I am extremely uncomfortable with this.
Can the conviction be appealed?
Very unlikely. It was in accordance with the current law. The judge did not misdirect himself or the jury. Jury decisions can't really be appealed on the facts and, to be honest, it could not be said that the decision was in any way irrational on the information that they had. It is the law that needs correcting, our Scottish courts have got themselves into a cul-de-sac.
Would it have been different in England?
I don't know. An English lawyer on here should be able to tell you.
Or even a free tabloid..
That's a different issue Divvie. I was being asked about whether evidence of a subsequent request for sex by the complainer from the accused would be admissible in England. I don't know enough about English laws of evidence to answer that.
On a lighter note, the Japanese have come up with a word for Leon.
プロ驚き屋 ("a professional surprised man", New Slang) = a person who excitedly shares state-of-the-art tools/technologies like ChatGPT on social media with hyperbole like 神/最強/ヤバすぎ, as well as with hallucination/overstatement at times based on a few cherry-picked examples https://mobile.twitter.com/takashionary/status/1645371251236503553O
On topic (and as usual, an excellent Cyclefree thread) the solution is to hose money at justice. It should be popular with the voters even in austere again times. And bring cases to trial in months as opposed to years surely has to help.
Whether that happens under a Labour government or not I do not know.
But there is the societal issue we're going to have to tackle as well. The right have tried to take us down this 'fear the ladycock!' rabbithole, where in very strident terms we're told that the fake trans person is the real threat to womanhood.
In reality almost every assault on a woman is done by a man. Men know this, don't want to face the issue, so scapegoats and excuses are made.
The way to tackle the incel idiocy and Tateism is to educate young men that women have rights too. If they want someone to have sex with them, they need to be attractive. That doesn't mean lets impose societal definitions of normal. But it does mean not being a whiny self-obsessed fuck.
It’s some 70 years, since I was in my mid teens, but I seem to remember that while we played some rather iffy games sometimes we pknew the difference between right and wrong. Girls were fair game in young men’s conversations, but not in their actions!
Ryley denied that she or her husband were racist. “I’m not a racist in any form.”
She confirmed that her husband had been photographed in a T-shirt from the far-right group Britain First. She said: “I don’t think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.”
This is not exactly a novel observation, but I was slightly taken aback by the BBC reporting Trump's obvious lies about the circumstances of his arrest as a 'revelation'. And that was the top headline on R4 news earlier this morning.
They don't see it as their role to determine truth or facts, but to present the most engaging mix of opinion and bullshit to gain as much attention as possible.
Trump is just perfect for them.
On a similar note, the BBC is virtually pleasuring itself to death over getting the ‘scoop’ of an interview with Musk. You will be unsurprised that the softest of balls were pitched at him.
I don't know the Scottish case, but in principle don't think a non-custodial sentence is always inappropriate. That should be for the judge to decide.
Douglas Hurd famously said "Prison is an expensive way to make bad people worse" and pointed out that locking people up had only a short term effect. He was a rare Home Secretary who actually reduced the prison population.
The USA has a quarter of the world's prison population. Is it safer? Not from what is written upthread.
It is very much a minority view but I think that the societal obsession with sending people to prison, much in evidence on PB, is evidence of how society is actually moving backwards and becoming less civilised; something also reflected in the appalling conditions in prisons, which people are generally indifferent about.
But to move on from it you have to find demonstrably workable alternatives that people can be confident in. The problem is really that people don't have confidence in institutions like the probation service, the parole board, etc, because a lot of time they don't work. I think though that eventually technology (AI and surveillance) will transform offender management in the community.
Prison should just be used for the management of dangerous and repeat offenders, not generally as a form of routine punishment. One of the good 'woke' ideas is prison abolition.
Ryley denied that she or her husband were racist. “I’m not a racist in any form.”
She confirmed that her husband had been photographed in a T-shirt from the far-right group Britain First. She said: “I don’t think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.”
What non- Nazi doesn't have an item of pro-fascist themed clothing in the event of an emergency?
I have only met the nasties of Britain First once, at a pro Leave demonstration in the referendum campaign. Their views are disgusting.
However I do not want to criminalise their thought crimes, just their actions. This pub couple do appear to be repulsive racists, but they should still be able to express their views. If they plan or carry out acts of violence then that is a different matter.
This Trump bank run story. Its about as logical as the South Park story where to stop the time-travelling migrants taking their jobs, all the blue collar men decide they need to have a big gay orgy...
As it is Trumpsters in the frame, it may be utterly insane but it is high plausible.
I don't know the Scottish case, but in principle don't think a non-custodial sentence is always inappropriate. That should be for the judge to decide.
Douglas Hurd famously said "Prison is an expensive way to make bad people worse" and pointed out that locking people up had only a short term effect. He was a rare Home Secretary who actually reduced the prison population.
The USA has a quarter of the world's prison population. Is it safer? Not from what is written upthread.
It is very much a minority view but I think that the societal obsession with sending people to prison, much in evidence on PB, is evidence of how society is actually moving backwards and becoming less civilised; something also reflected in the appalling conditions in prisons, which people are generally indifferent about.
But to move on from it you have to find demonstrably workable alternatives that people can be confident in. The problem is really that people don't have confidence in institutions like the probation service, the parole board, etc, because a lot of time they don't work. I think though that eventually technology (AI and surveillance) will transform offender management in the community.
Prison should just be used for the management of dangerous and repeat offenders, not generally as a form of routine punishment. One of the good 'woke' ideas is prison abolition.
I wouldn't call for abolition, but there is potentially a lot of funding for probation services, shortening time to trial and well supervised non-custodial sentences released by spending less on prisons.
I don't know the Scottish case, but in principle don't think a non-custodial sentence is always inappropriate. That should be for the judge to decide.
Douglas Hurd famously said "Prison is an expensive way to make bad people worse" and pointed out that locking people up had only a short term effect. He was a rare Home Secretary who actually reduced the prison population.
The USA has a quarter of the world's prison population. Is it safer? Not from what is written upthread.
It is very much a minority view but I think that the societal obsession with sending people to prison, much in evidence on PB, is evidence of how society is actually moving backwards and becoming less civilised; something also reflected in the appalling conditions in prisons, which people are generally indifferent about.
But to move on from it you have to find demonstrably workable alternatives that people can be confident in. The problem is really that people don't have confidence in institutions like the probation service, the parole board, etc, because a lot of time they don't work. I think though that eventually technology (AI and surveillance) will transform offender management in the community.
Prison should just be used for the management of dangerous and repeat offenders, not generally as a form of routine punishment. One of the good 'woke' ideas is prison abolition.
I am not entirely sure that I am looking forward to a society where AI and technological surveillance transforms offender management. Do you really think such technology would stop there?
This is not exactly a novel observation, but I was slightly taken aback by the BBC reporting Trump's obvious lies about the circumstances of his arrest as a 'revelation'. And that was the top headline on R4 news earlier this morning.
They don't see it as their role to determine truth or facts, but to present the most engaging mix of opinion and bullshit to gain as much attention as possible.
Trump is just perfect for them.
On a similar note, the BBC is virtually pleasuring itself to death over getting the ‘scoop’ of an interview with Musk. You will be unsurprised that the softest of balls were pitched at him.
As predicted at the time he bought Twitter, its all about x.com. Twitter no longer exists as a company, its now part of his everything app project. Hence him tweeting "X" a few days back after this went though.
He is messing about with Twitter knowing its time as Twitter is finite. If it is going to change anyway, he thinks he may as well have some fun with it.
As I understand it, the current legal definition of sexual assault, dating back to 2003, is based on consent. Consequently, lots of sexual encounters can potentially fall under the definition of sexual assault or rape whereas previously they would not have been regarded as such. The threshold for a legitimate complaint is low, but the threshold of proof for the police/prosecutors is very high - because a permitted defence is that the perpetrator had a 'reasonable belief' that there was consent, and then the crime has to obviously be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
I would say that the current legal definition is a significant contributory factor in the difficulties in prosecuting these crimes and the consequential low conviction rates, and this needs to be taken in to account in any prospective reform. If the goal is to increase prosecutions, the one obvious change I can think of would be to change the test from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to one that is based on the 'balance of probabilities'. Obviously though that would be a fundamental change to the legal system, and not a path to be embarked on lightly.
The best way to increase conviction rates is to abolish jury trials for sexual offences. Normal people are seriously reluctant to send someone down for years on the basis of he said / she said; letting the legal professionals deal with it would be much better for the police clear up stats, the Home Office productivity stats and the charities wanting to see more men in prison for a date that went badly.
It needs saying: the object of the exercise is not more convictions but more guilty men held to account for their vile , selfish behaviour. Every time you remove a safeguard you risk innocent people being sent to jail for some greater good. Imagine yourself in the dock in such a scenario and think about that.
For many, it is about more convictions and harsher sentences. Efficacy, let alone justice, is at best a secondary consideration when considered at all.
Yes, and they are the scary ones. I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape. This was deemed collateral and inadmissible on the question of whether she consented on the night in question. Truly irrational in my view. In contrast I am waiting for the decision of a jury overnight in which I am relying on evidence that the accused had sex with another 14 year old a year before the alleged offence. This is, in contrast, deemed both admissible and corroborative. It will be interesting to see what the jury make of it.
"I did a trial recently where the accused was not allowed to allege that the complainer had asked him for a shag the night after the alleged rape."
That is indescribably unjust. I thought the Supreme Court had ruled this out of order? That previous/relevant sexual history between complainant and plaintiff must be allowed, if germane? How can it not be germane?
I would probably have been convicted under these strictures (ie not allowing prior sexual history). And I was innocent. I would have got 5-7 years aged 22
The logic is that these "collateral" matters confuse and distract the jury. They are there to determine whether the woman was raped on date X by Mr Y. Sometimes, often, these allegations of both prior sex and post sex are just that and you could end up with a trial about 2 or 3 events rather than 1. But in my case there was a text asking for exactly that. And the jury were not allowed to see it. And they convicted.
I am extremely uncomfortable with this.
Can the conviction be appealed?
Very unlikely. It was in accordance with the current law. The judge did not misdirect himself or the jury. Jury decisions can't really be appealed on the facts and, to be honest, it could not be said that the decision was in any way irrational on the information that they had. It is the law that needs correcting, our Scottish courts have got themselves into a cul-de-sac.
Would it have been different in England?
I don't know. An English lawyer on here should be able to tell you.
Or even a free tabloid..
That's a different issue Divvie. I was being asked about whether evidence of a subsequent request for sex by the complainer from the accused would be admissible in England. I don't know enough about English laws of evidence to answer that.
Ah, in that case apologies. It does seem that English and Scots law have often lurched along in tandem. In your case would the judge have had enough self determination to allow the allegation of being asked for a ‘shag’ to be aired?
F1: unsure if this is happening but saw yesterday the format for sprint races may change.
The idea, thought to be active from Azerbaijan onwards is: Friday - FP1, race qualifying Saturday - sprint qualifying, sprint race Sunday - race
Yes. It’s still under discussion, but they are also looking at a different qualifying format for the Sprint Q session as well, perhaps a one-shot time trial in reverse championship order.
Ryley denied that she or her husband were racist. “I’m not a racist in any form.”
She confirmed that her husband had been photographed in a T-shirt from the far-right group Britain First. She said: “I don’t think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.”
What non- Nazi doesn't have an item of pro-fascist themed clothing in the event of an emergency?
I have only met the nasties of Britain First once, at a pro Leave demonstration in the referendum campaign. Their views are disgusting.
However I do not want to criminalise their thought crimes, just their actions. This pub couple do appear to be repulsive racists, but they should still be able to express their views. If they plan or carry out acts of violence then that is a different matter.
We now know not only that they are racist, but that they are liars. The early reporting of events, how much did that rely on what the couple said happened? Could it be that what happened was actually very different from the narrative first presented?
This is not exactly a novel observation, but I was slightly taken aback by the BBC reporting Trump's obvious lies about the circumstances of his arrest as a 'revelation'. And that was the top headline on R4 news earlier this morning.
They don't see it as their role to determine truth or facts, but to present the most engaging mix of opinion and bullshit to gain as much attention as possible.
Trump is just perfect for them.
On a similar note, the BBC is virtually pleasuring itself to death over getting the ‘scoop’ of an interview with Musk. You will be unsurprised that the softest of balls were pitched at him.
It was interesting nonetheless - even if both interview and accompanying analysis were about as lightweight as it's possible to be.
Comments
You live in a brutal autocratic society with a thuggish leader not afraid to use force to impose his desired outcome
Random stranger approaches you in the street and engages in political chat
Do you say you support the president or not?
“You send £350 a week to the independence campaign. Let’s give it to the Sturgeons instead.”
WC snooker starts Saturday.
There has long been a suspicion that the hordes of talented young Chinese underperform at big moments.
There has also been an idea as to why.
A certain dark influence player, with a track record of violent, controlling behaviour has been taken out of the equation and identified as the ringleader in the current match fixing scandal.
Several highly talented Chinese are currently suspended.
However. In qualifying, the ones who aren't banned, are finally freed up to play to their potential at big moments.
Half the qualifiers for the Crucible have been decided tonight. (Other half tomorrow).
Si Jiahui (20), Wu Yize (19) and Fan Zhengyi (22) have qualified and will be seriously overpriced assuming a non fixed match whoever they play in the first round. (We don't know the draw yet). But they are all ranked way lower than their ability.
In addition, the winner of Xu Si (25) v Pang Junxu (23) will qualify tomorrow.
They'll be the same.
For context with those ages. The average age of the Top 16 is over 40.
I'm looking at the Audi A1/A3 is there some glaring issue with it that I should avoid and get something else?
Coz he is doing an amazing job of bringing down El Salvador's hideous crime rates by being a fascistic c*nt and shooting a lot of people and shoving the rest into jails which are more like battery pig farms
"El Salvador murders plummet by over half in 2022 amid gang crackdown"
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/el-salvador-murders-plummet-by-over-half-2022-amid-gang-crackdown-2023-01-03/
"The reduction in homicides is a result of the state of exception, because that number of criminals is no longer on the streets harming the population," Merino said.
Polls show a majority of Salvadorans approve of the crackdown, which has set up a military presence in neighborhoods considered at high risk of gang violence."
In the end people will VOTE for Fascists, if it makes them safe in an otherwise anarchic and violent society. That's the case. Mussolini was the only Italian leader to really get a brutal grip on the Mafia
Fastidious liberals who don't want this should really think a bit harder
So won't care much.
My point was that an opinion poll in an autocratic society might not give unbiased results
Those numbers for training piece doesnt necessarily make sense either though, this conflict is dominated by conventional brigade and battalion level warfare, not exactly SOF niche. The main NATO cell that coordinates the effort in theater is sitting in Germany and whilst I have very little doubt that some kind of miltary presence is in-country, thats an awul lot of instructors just to train small arms & infantry tactics which the Ukrainians can do themselves or just ship people across the border and do it there.
I suspect its a liasion, co-ordination and targeting mission along with security detail for the same which isnt exactly big shit and 50 UKSF in that still seems large.
There will be a super long (probably losing) price available.
DYOR as ever.
For the supposedly richest nation on earth, and its "most famous tourist city", this is quite an astonishing statistic
"Beginning last March, Bukele launched a massive crackdown on gangs, more than doubling the tiny nation's prison population in the process. The result? The homicide rate in El Salvador has plunged to new lows. Murders last year (496) were down 57% from the year prior to a rate of 7.8 per 100,000. Washington, D.C.'s rate of 28.5 murders per 100,000 is far worse.
It hasn't been pretty how they got there. Bukele, a centrist businessman who came from neither El Salvador's rightist nor leftist political traditions, has been attacked by human rights groups for the brutality of his anti-gang campaign, the treatment of prisoners, and allegations that innocent people are being swept up with the guilty and charged either with gang membership or collaboration with gangs. But El Salvador's crackdown is insanely popular inside the country. It has given Bukele a nearly 90% approval rating. Nearly everyone inside El Salvador supports the crackdown because it has transformed that nation from a crime-ridden, violent hellscape into a livable place."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/el-salvador-just-learned-that-incarceration-works
Gone bust and closed due to energy bills.
Remember Fujimora in Peru? Enormously popular, got the gangs under control, cut crime... then power went to his head, and he ended up fleeing the country, before being dragged back for trial and imprisonment.
Indeed, the record of Strong Men leaders - long term - has been pretty shit.
https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1637277684853100545
It's pretty unpleasant.
On the other hand, the National WW2 Museum is excellent. The food, especially once you leave the tourist spots is also great.
https://www.worldatlas.com/cities/the-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-world.html
https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-city-rankings/cities-with-most-murders
Although murder rates in US cities are extremely high compared to other countries, some cities are experiencing their lowest numbers of murders in years. Newark, New Jersey had 72 murders in 2017, down from 94 in 2016. New York City’s 300 murders in 2017 is the lowest number the city has had since the 1950s.
As for New Orleans being a dangerous place to wander around in the wrong places, it was just like that, first time I saw the place, which was over a half-century ago. So hardly some startling new wages of woke.
Fact is, that the French Quarter, the Garden District and similar areas, are check-by-jowl with inner-city slums. And have been that way since Louis Armstrong was in short pants.
https://twitter.com/ConnorGillies/status/1645904308045750274
I hope I would have the strength and courage to oppose him, but until I’m in that situation I wouldn’t know that I would
Janan Ganesh on the “soft left” https://ft.com/content/3e7a2c
The UK is among a number of countries with military special forces operating inside Ukraine, according to one of dozens of documents leaked online. It confirms what has been the subject of quiet speculation for over a year. The leaked files, some marked "top secret", paint a detailed picture of the war in Ukraine, including sensitive details of Ukraine's preparations for a spring counter-offensive. The US government says it is investigating the source of the leak."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65245065
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sex-offender-george-low-19-avoids-jail-88873rvtc
On the down side, the hotels are appalling and the food variable. Plenty of good breakfast and sandwich places, hilariously bad formal evening dining.
Nice set of pubs and restaurants between the two bridges, down by the river.
And, of PB relevance, the old railway station, now a hotel, is where the famous "Dewey Defeats Truman" photograph was taken.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Lake_Landfill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjnmzljtREk
It'll probably be alright but a Hyundai i20 will be far better value and probably better quality. Indo-Pacific pivot remember, stop being a FBPE drone.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/11/city-of-london-police-open-inquiry-into-alleged-sexual-misconduct-at-cbi
Joanna Lumley and Romesh Ranganathan also do this, amongst many others.
Ryley denied that she or her husband were racist. “I’m not a racist in any form.”
She confirmed that her husband had been photographed in a T-shirt from the far-right group Britain First. She said: “I don’t think Chris is a supporter of Britain First, he was just wearing that shirt because it was convenient at the time.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/11/essex-pub-landlady-benice-ryley-replaces-golliwog-doll-collection-that-was-seized-by-police
And that was the top headline on R4 news earlier this morning.
Reporters will still instantly repeat literally anything Trump says—after eight long years of constant, unrepentant lies—and they’ll do it with no more criticism than a slightly arch tone.
https://mobile.twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1645949744823320577
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Russian telegram channels spread a video showing a Ukrainian soldier being beheaded live. I will not share this video for ethical reasons. Only immoral criminals can do this, not the official army. This is a violation not just of the Geneva Conventions, but of any law of humanity.
https://twitter.com/MamedovGyunduz/status/1645900034775367681
Oh, and their boss has the chair of the UN security council.
But a T-shirt! For f***’s sake.
As for your question on Isis, they were considerably more effective than the Russian army. Not sure whether that's a good thing or a bad thing tbh.
Lawmaker Alexei Zhuravlyov disagreed: "It's accomplished by shooting or ripping heads off."
Host Olga Skabeeva agreed: "Denazification is usually conducted by knocking heads off."
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1509953159803846656
Trump is just perfect for them.
He said no.
Richard Rampton immediately pulled out a letter to Irving from a regional organiser of the BNP where he had been booked to appear at an event as a key party supporter.
Irving then said he didn't know at the time the correspondent was a member of the BNP and said he merely thought of him as somebody with 'right wing political views.'
The judge's exact words, expressed with some vigour, were, 'Mr Irving, come on, that letter is on the *stationery* of the British National Party!'
Having been very finely balanced all the way through, that tipped the case against Irving as it demonstrated to the judge that he was (a) a liar (b) a Fascist and (c) as mad as a box of frogs.
Douglas Hurd famously said "Prison is an expensive way to make bad people worse" and pointed out that locking people up had only a short term effect. He was a rare Home Secretary who actually reduced the prison population.
The USA has a quarter of the world's prison population. Is it safer? Not from what is written upthread.
People should chill and take offence less on both the woke and anti woke sides and enjoy the jokes. There are times to take offence and times when it is just a joke.
Whether that happens under a Labour government or not I do not know.
But there is the societal issue we're going to have to tackle as well. The right have tried to take us down this 'fear the ladycock!' rabbithole, where in very strident terms we're told that the fake trans person is the real threat to womanhood.
In reality almost every assault on a woman is done by a man. Men know this, don't want to face the issue, so scapegoats and excuses are made.
The way to tackle the incel idiocy and Tateism is to educate young men that women have rights too. If they want someone to have sex with them, they need to be attractive. That doesn't mean lets impose societal definitions of normal. But it does mean not being a whiny self-obsessed fuck.
https://twitter.com/front_ukrainian/status/1645730797087776768?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1645730797087776768|twgr^61df0d253bf48c50b17b11af078a446f44f510f1|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/4/11/2163296/-Ukraine-Update-If-the-leaked-documents-are-real-then-they-re-a-good-sign-for-Ukraine
Really quite moving.
プロ驚き屋 ("a professional surprised man", New Slang)
= a person who excitedly shares state-of-the-art tools/technologies like ChatGPT on social media with hyperbole like 神/最強/ヤバすぎ, as well as with hallucination/overstatement at times based on a few cherry-picked examples
https://mobile.twitter.com/takashionary/status/1645371251236503553O
F1: unsure if this is happening but saw yesterday the format for sprint races may change.
The idea, thought to be active from Azerbaijan onwards is:
Friday - FP1, race qualifying
Saturday - sprint qualifying, sprint race
Sunday - race
But to move on from it you have to find demonstrably workable alternatives that people can be confident in. The problem is really that people don't have confidence in institutions like the probation service, the parole board, etc, because a lot of time they don't work. I think though that eventually technology (AI and surveillance) will transform offender management in the community.
Prison should just be used for the management of dangerous and repeat offenders, not generally as a form of routine punishment. One of the good 'woke' ideas is prison abolition.
However I do not want to criminalise their thought crimes, just their actions. This pub couple do appear to be repulsive racists, but they should still be able to express their views. If they plan or carry out acts of violence then that is a different matter.
And the problem with alternatives is that they just don't seem to work as this very recent headline shows: https://news.stv.tv/politics/over-100000-absences-from-community-sentences-insult-to-victims-scottish-conservatives-say
People given community work as an alternative to prison are just not turning up in huge numbers.
He is messing about with Twitter knowing its time as Twitter is finite. If it is going to change anyway, he thinks he may as well have some fun with it.
It does seem that English and Scots law have often lurched along in tandem. In your case would the judge have had enough self determination to allow the allegation of being asked for a ‘shag’ to be aired?