I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Well, there's disrupted and there's disruptred.
If they were holding placards saying "not my King" or somesuch, that's one thing.
But if they - for example - set off loud sirens with the intention of getting the horses to bolt, then that's another.
The problem is, of course, that we're giving the police a great deal of latitude to decide (in advance of any actual disruption) what kind of threat people pose.
They held placards. The Met call that disruption, it is their right to do so.
They didn’t say the placards were disruptive, did they? It was about preventing more serious disruption.
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
And so as the view of young regarding the treatment of Harry becomes more mainstream the royal family will die.
On the tarmac at Schiphol on the way back from Paris.
Main thing to note Galarie Layfette now offer a 12% (tax free) discount for Brits. That £1150 handbag for €1000 is great deal
Even among the young, Harry's ratings are negative.
I don't know why we lionise the young as uniquely wise and the old as uniquely selfish.
Both can be dumb or insightful.
Let's discuss on the merits of the issues please.
You've just said - in effect - that the opinions of the young can be disregarded, a few posts earlier, as a matter of principle!
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
And yet, they view Andrew Tate as a hero.
And support Scottish Independence, are astrology "curious" and make sympathetic noises about authoritarian regimes.
Could it be that young people simply follow the crowd and don't think things through properly?
Not really. I've just said they shouldn't be treated as messiahs.
I've seen them lauded for their wisdom on Brexit - because it's "economic madness" - and also lauded for their wisdom on Scottish Independence- because, um, it's also "economic madness".
Of course what it's really about is rebelling against the establishment regardless of consequence, which is a time honoured proclivity of youth down the centuries.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
Totally agree. While I have qualms over the Police's actions, there is no doubt (as you say) that they wanted to cause some sort of public statement / trouble and overshadow the Coronation. I really don't understand why they didn't stay in bed and ignore the whole thing.
Look that chap over there is walking on the cracks in the pavement and definitely looks a dodgy sort. Must be guilty of something so we should bang him up.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
Perhaps because 'rape' has a very precise legal definition?
It's perfectly possible to believe sexual assault happened but fell short of that definition?
And she has been explicit it was rape. Plus, and again, the jury believed her on her other accusations. So why did they not believe her when she said she had been raped? The definition is not an issue here.
And they may have considered her memory after 28 years not precise enough to demonstrate rape even on BoP but taking everything together they are confident some form of sexual assault took place.
I have no idea why you think it is binary.* Very few things in dealing with evidence especially oral evidence are.
*actually, noting that you still haven't provided a source other than a neo-Fascist website for your lurid claims about Biden, this statement is in itself not altogether true.
"*actually, noting that you still haven't provided a source other than a neo-Fascist website for your lurid claims about Biden, this statement is in itself not altogether true."
What, you mean RealClearPolitics is a neo-fascist website?
I know you said you wanted to outlaw the GOP and make it illegal but surely saying RCP is a neo-fascist website is a step too far, even for your dictatorial credentials
Fucking hell.
If you think it isn't you are genuinely mad.
It is an avowed supporter of violently overthrowing the American government, and is funded ultimately by Donald Trump and his supporters.
Putting stuff out from it about Biden is the equivalent of using the Deutsches Nachrichten Buro to demonstrate the criminality of Jews in Germany in the 1930s.
So I say again - do you have a reliable source? Put up from a reputable news agency, or shut up.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
Perhaps because 'rape' has a very precise legal definition?
It's perfectly possible to believe sexual assault happened but fell short of that definition?
And she has been explicit it was rape. Plus, and again, the jury believed her on her other accusations. So why did they not believe her when she said she had been raped? The definition is not an issue here.
I don't think the Jury has to give reasons for why they came to the decisions they did, but it is an interesting question nonetheless. Maybe that part of the testimony just wasn't accepted by the jury, everything else was. It tends to suggest that they did consider the evidence carefully. What I find problematic is how the defendent is at such a disadvantage in such a situation - how do you prove something didn't happen on an undefined day 30 years ago?
I don't think this case will do Trump any real harm. He will just shrug it off or it will work to his advantage. It feeds perfectly into his explanatory framework about democrats and other elites conspiring against him.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
Totally agree. While I have qualms over the Police's actions, there is no doubt (as you say) that they wanted to cause some sort of public statement / trouble and overshadow the Coronation. I really don't understand why they didn't stay in bed and ignore the whole thing.
My view is that if people choose to be disruptive, they should not expect the police to protect them from others who would like to be disruptive towards them.
You condone assault? Nice.
There is such a thing as fighting words. Organisations like XR and Just Stop Oil are trying to provoke a fight.
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
And yet, they view Andrew Tate as a hero.
They don't. They really don't. There are some, but probably about as many as young royalists or Tories. The Tate thing is just another moral panic.
I am not so sure. The "Manosphere" can be a pretty toxic place, but has a lot of sympathisers. We get them on here at times.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Researchers discover a potential cause of Parkinson’s disease Researchers at the University of Helsinki have demonstrated that certain strains of Desulfovibrio bacteria are the likely cause of Parkinson’s disease in most cases. The study enables the screening of the carriers of Desulfovibrio strains and the removal of the bacteria from the gut. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/brain/researchers-discover-potential-cause-parkinsons-disease
If this pans out it could prevent the majority of cases.
Just to add a note of caution, the Frontiers journals have not been controversy-free in the past. It seems a slightly odd choice for such a potentially groundbreaking discovery, which may suggest that other higher profile journals were not keen to take the article due to editorial or peer review processes.
Note that I haven't read the paper and don't have time right now (and quite possibly I lack the expertise to come to any reasonable judgement on it). Just a slight alarm bell ringing, Frontiers journals would not be high up my list to publish in - I wouldn't rule it out, would take it case by case, journal by journal, but I have never published with them.
ETA: I mean, if this stands up, I'd be expecting to get it into NEJM, bmj* or the Lancet** or similar, at least.
* for all that I've heard it described as the Sun of medical journals ** yes, I know, but still high profile
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
Perhaps because 'rape' has a very precise legal definition?
It's perfectly possible to believe sexual assault happened but fell short of that definition?
And she has been explicit it was rape. Plus, and again, the jury believed her on her other accusations. So why did they not believe her when she said she had been raped? The definition is not an issue here.
And they may have considered her memory after 28 years not precise enough to demonstrate rape even on BoP but taking everything together they are confident some form of sexual assault took place.
I have no idea why you think it is binary.* Very few things in dealing with evidence especially oral evidence are.
*actually, noting that you still haven't provided a source other than a neo-Fascist website for your lurid claims about Biden, this statement is in itself not altogether true.
"*actually, noting that you still haven't provided a source other than a neo-Fascist website for your lurid claims about Biden, this statement is in itself not altogether true."
What, you mean RealClearPolitics is a neo-fascist website?
I know you said you wanted to outlaw the GOP and make it illegal but surely saying RCP is a neo-fascist website is a step too far, even for your dictatorial credentials
Fucking hell.
If you think it isn't you are genuinely mad.
It is an avowed supporter of violently overthrowing the American government, and is funded ultimately by Donald Trump and his supporters.
Putting stuff out from it about Biden is the equivalent of using the Deutsches Nachrichten Buro to demonstrate the criminality of Jews in Germany in the 1930s.
So I say again - do you have a reliable source? Put up from a reputable news agency, or shut up.
The one that publishes pieces from The Federalist and Salon, MSNBC and Fox, and so forth i.e. it actually gives a range of views on its site that everyone can look at? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Nazi Germany really allowed different opinions to be expressed. Quite the opposite.
There is only one of us who has said openly they want to ban one of the two main political parties in the US. And that wasn't me. You really has no self-awareness at all. I honestly believe you would quite happily shoot people who don't agree with you, the only caveat being you might think that is too good for them.
You really are off your rocker. If you had any power, you actually would be dangerous. Fortunately, you don't.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
I think in that case the police will be protecting the protesters.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
Everyone has a right to make their case. The Met and the Tories - and you - seem to disagree.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Well, there's disrupted and there's disruptred.
If they were holding placards saying "not my King" or somesuch, that's one thing.
But if they - for example - set off loud sirens with the intention of getting the horses to bolt, then that's another.
The problem is, of course, that we're giving the police a great deal of latitude to decide (in advance of any actual disruption) what kind of threat people pose.
They held placards. The Met call that disruption, it is their right to do so.
They didn’t say the placards were disruptive, did they? It was about preventing more serious disruption.
If so, why did they concentrate on the several hundred, and not find any evidence of them being anything but muppets?
Not a shred of evidence has been produced to say they were up to more than a bit of placard waving.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
Totally agree. While I have qualms over the Police's actions, there is no doubt (as you say) that they wanted to cause some sort of public statement / trouble and overshadow the Coronation. I really don't understand why they didn't stay in bed and ignore the whole thing.
My view is that if people choose to be disruptive, they should not expect the police to protect them from others who would like to be disruptive towards them.
You condone assault? Nice.
There is such a thing as fighting words. Organisations like XR and Just Stop Oil are trying to provoke a fight.
In the case of XR, I wouldn't really agree with this. They're primarily interested in gaining attention, and were specifically set up to be non-violent.
A group somewhat more like what you're describing is the 1990's group Reclaim The Streets ; XR are much more mild in their tactics compared.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
Everyone has a right to make their case. The Met and the Tories - and you - seem to disagree.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
Perhaps because 'rape' has a very precise legal definition?
It's perfectly possible to believe sexual assault happened but fell short of that definition?
And she has been explicit it was rape. Plus, and again, the jury believed her on her other accusations. So why did they not believe her when she said she had been raped? The definition is not an issue here.
I don't think the Jury has to give reasons for why they came to the decisions they did, but it is an interesting question nonetheless. Maybe that part of the testimony just wasn't accepted by the jury, everything else was. It tends to suggest that they did consider the evidence carefully. What I find problematic is how the defendent is at such a disadvantage in such a situation - how do you prove something didn't happen on an undefined day 30 years ago?
I don't think this case will do Trump any real harm. He will just shrug it off or it will work to his advantage. It feeds perfectly into his explanatory framework about democrats and other elites conspiring against him.
Here are some things that I’d’ve done were I Trump to prove something didn’t happen…
1) Not lie about everything all the time in a way that makes any testimony I make seem unreliable
2) Not be recorded saying you can grab women by their genitals because you’re famous
Defendants can defend themselves by being demonstrably honest people with no track record of the accused behaviour.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Well, there's disrupted and there's disruptred.
If they were holding placards saying "not my King" or somesuch, that's one thing.
But if they - for example - set off loud sirens with the intention of getting the horses to bolt, then that's another.
The problem is, of course, that we're giving the police a great deal of latitude to decide (in advance of any actual disruption) what kind of threat people pose.
They held placards. The Met call that disruption, it is their right to do so.
They didn’t say the placards were disruptive, did they? It was about preventing more serious disruption.
If so, why did they concentrate on the several hundred, and not find any evidence of them being anything but muppets?
Not a shred of evidence has been produced to say they were up to more than a bit of placard waving.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
I love the Ashes. But if they want to protest, they have the right to do so. I will be annoyed with them but I will sit there and defend them until I die. I love this country for that reason.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
Perhaps because 'rape' has a very precise legal definition?
It's perfectly possible to believe sexual assault happened but fell short of that definition?
And she has been explicit it was rape. Plus, and again, the jury believed her on her other accusations. So why did they not believe her when she said she had been raped? The definition is not an issue here.
I don't think the Jury has to give reasons for why they came to the decisions they did, but it is an interesting question nonetheless. Maybe that part of the testimony just wasn't accepted by the jury, everything else was. It tends to suggest that they did consider the evidence carefully. What I find problematic is how the defendent is at such a disadvantage in such a situation - how do you prove something didn't happen on an undefined day 30 years ago?
I don't think this case will do Trump any real harm. He will just shrug it off or it will work to his advantage. It feeds perfectly into his explanatory framework about democrats and other elites conspiring against him.
I would agree with that re the defendant being at such a disadvantage. As I said, not only did the accuser but also the witnesses did not recollect the date. TSE has said why the accuser wouldn't, which is entirely reasonable, but I fail to see the same reason for the witnesses. And realistically, if a date had been provided, it would have at least helped solidify things one way or the other - could he have been there or not?
Also agree with you it won't do him harm although it may hit on the Independent vote.
It does seem a bit concerning if a serious allegation of wrongdoing can be proven by one persons account backed up by two people they spoke to around the time, with no other significant evidence, and nearly 30 years passing. How is anyone going to defend themselves against that? You would just be there saying 'it didn't happen', and hoping the jury/judge believes you over the complainant.
It's not remotely concerning. Concerning is how he's avoided accountability for so long.
Say someone made an allegation about something that you did 'around 1995 or 1996', and they spoke on the phone to two friends who remember it at the time, and this was the extent of the evidence. You don't know any of the people involved. There is a legal case against you based on the fact that the fact that the allegation was corroborated by two people makes it likely to have happened on the 'balance of probabilities'. Your witness statement - that you don't have any recollection of the event occuring - has no weight because of the amount of time that has passed. Would you defend yourself against it? Or would you just accept that it must be true?
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
Totally agree. While I have qualms over the Police's actions, there is no doubt (as you say) that they wanted to cause some sort of public statement / trouble and overshadow the Coronation. I really don't understand why they didn't stay in bed and ignore the whole thing.
My view is that if people choose to be disruptive, they should not expect the police to protect them from others who would like to be disruptive towards them.
You condone assault? Nice.
There is such a thing as fighting words. Organisations like XR and Just Stop Oil are trying to provoke a fight.
In the case of XR, I wouldn't really agree with this. They're primarily interested in gaining attention, and were specifically set up to be non-violent.
A group somewhat more like what you're describing is the 1990's group Reclaim The Streets ; XR are much more mild in their tactics compared.
Yes, and they wanted to gain attention by being disruptive at the event. Given they were foiled at that they are now trying to gain attention by claiming they were victims of some sort of Gestapo crap.
The grievance is almost entirely manufactured, and I honestly couldn't give a toss.
They are hugely self-entitled upper middle-class brats.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
Totally agree. While I have qualms over the Police's actions, there is no doubt (as you say) that they wanted to cause some sort of public statement / trouble and overshadow the Coronation. I really don't understand why they didn't stay in bed and ignore the whole thing.
My view is that if people choose to be disruptive, they should not expect the police to protect them from others who would like to be disruptive towards them.
You condone assault? Nice.
There is such a thing as fighting words. Organisations like XR and Just Stop Oil are trying to provoke a fight.
In the case of XR, I wouldn't really agree with this. They're primarily interested in gaining attention, and were specifically set up to be non-violent.
A group somewhat more like what you're describing is the 1990's group Reclaim The Streets ; XR are much more mild in their tactics compared.
When xr disrupt by blocking a street and people don't get to work so lose a days pay resulting in their family going hungry....you say that is non violent....sorry fuck off is it. Not all violence is fist to face....causing a struggling family to struggle more is still violence no matter what arseholes like xr or jso say
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
Totally agree. While I have qualms over the Police's actions, there is no doubt (as you say) that they wanted to cause some sort of public statement / trouble and overshadow the Coronation. I really don't understand why they didn't stay in bed and ignore the whole thing.
My view is that if people choose to be disruptive, they should not expect the police to protect them from others who would like to be disruptive towards them.
You condone assault? Nice.
There is such a thing as fighting words. Organisations like XR and Just Stop Oil are trying to provoke a fight.
In the case of XR, I wouldn't really agree with this. They're primarily interested in gaining attention, and were specifically set up to be non-violent.
A group somewhat more like what you're describing is the 1990's group Reclaim The Streets ; XR are much more mild in their tactics compared.
Yes, and they wanted to gain attention by being disruptive at the event. Given they were foiled at that they are now trying to gain attention by claiming they were victims of some sort of Gestapo crap.
The grievance is almost entirely manufactured, and I honestly couldn't give a toss.
They are hugely self-entitled upper middle-class brats.
Well it has taken a few years, but it seems those on the right now agree that the fuel protestors were a bunch of criminal louts who should have been arrested for disrupting everyone else's daily lives.
Just a pity that the police appeared to turn a blind eye at the time.
It does seem a bit concerning if a serious allegation of wrongdoing can be proven by one persons account backed up by two people they spoke to around the time, with no other significant evidence, and nearly 30 years passing. How is anyone going to defend themselves against that? You would just be there saying 'it didn't happen', and hoping the jury/judge believes you over the complainant.
It's not remotely concerning. Concerning is how he's avoided accountability for so long.
Say someone made an allegation about something that you did 'around 1995 or 1996', and they spoke on the phone to two friends who remember it at the time, and this was the extent of the evidence. You don't know any of the people involved. There is a legal case against you based on the fact that the fact that the allegation was corroborated by two people makes it likely to have happened on the 'balance of probabilities'. Your witness statement - that you don't have any recollection of the event occuring - has no weight because of the amount of time that has passed. How would you defend yourself against it?
As I said I agree with you. He may be guilty but it is a hard one to defend yourself against.
The big underlying problem I have with all of this is that people look first at who is being accused to say whether they are guilty or not, rather than the crime / evidence. I am sure if Joe B had been accused of sexual assault in, let's say, Florida with exactly the same evidence and testimony, @kinabalu, @ydoethur et al would be on here telling us how the case is so weak, it's politically motivated etc. It is a sad state of affairs when you view justice not impartially but through partisan lens.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
Totally agree. While I have qualms over the Police's actions, there is no doubt (as you say) that they wanted to cause some sort of public statement / trouble and overshadow the Coronation. I really don't understand why they didn't stay in bed and ignore the whole thing.
My view is that if people choose to be disruptive, they should not expect the police to protect them from others who would like to be disruptive towards them.
You condone assault? Nice.
There is such a thing as fighting words. Organisations like XR and Just Stop Oil are trying to provoke a fight.
In the case of XR, I wouldn't really agree with this. They're primarily interested in gaining attention, and were specifically set up to be non-violent.
A group somewhat more like what you're describing is the 1990's group Reclaim The Streets ; XR are much more mild in their tactics compared.
Yes, and they wanted to gain attention by being disruptive at the event. Given they were foiled at that they are now trying to gain attention by claiming they were victims of some sort of Gestapo crap.
The grievance is almost entirely manufactured, and I honestly couldn't give a toss.
They are hugely self-entitled upper middle-class brats.
If disruptive is defined by chanting and waving a placard, then nearly all demonstrations could be classed as disruptive. This is exactly the kind of danger many of us, and I have no problem to include myself in this, have been warning of with these new laws since last year and before.
On the follow-up point, the Suffragettes were also upper-middle class, and much more disruptive than Republic ; does their social class mean that their protests were empty, immoral, or useless ?
They sat there and held placards that said Not My King.
Which is untrue...
Lol. Maybe it should have had an asterisk next to it with small print underneath explaining it was not legally correct but it was a good slogan and hopefully they will be forgiven for those pedantic enough to object and who would have preferred a longer more accurate but less effective less punchy slogan.
BREAKING!: Trump is found GUILTY in the E. Jean Carroll case after fewer than 3 hours of deliberation!
Verdicts NO to rape. YES on sexual abuse. YES on damage. $2 MILLION AWARD! YES to reckless $20K YES to defamatory! YES Trump's statements were false. YES there was malice. https://twitter.com/Andie00471/status/1656013458234589184
Fox News: Trump wins trumped up rape case stirred by angry Dems. Nothing else to report.
I assume there is a legal cap on awards in the state, whatever the jury do?
$5M total in compensation and convicted of sexual assault is hardly a WIN.
He will appeal, say that it's a NY jury and therefore biased. Americans' view of the media / whether someone is guilty etc is increasingly polarised and I can't see this changing too many minds.
Also, if you look at that verdict, it screams they wanted to find him guilty of Rape but couldn't find an excuse to do so, therefore convicted him of everything else. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the jury's verdict.
I agree with the first part, but the final conclusion of the second is a strange one. By the same token would a jury finding someone guilty of manslaughter instead of murder signify that we should distrust the verdict on the basis they probably wanted to find the person guilty of murder but didn't feel the evidence met the required standard for that?
Someone could easily turn it around and sat the fact that they didn't find uphold the rape allegation makes the rest of it that much more plausuble - on the basis they clearly did apply legal tests and did not find that one was met, so the others must also have been tested.
You seem to be saying that a failure to find against him on one allegation is reason to inherently distrust if they find against him on others.
That is a fair point and you are right on that. However, my personal view is (1) they realised the rape finding would be a step too far and (2) logically, finding him not guilty of rape but guilty of everyone else does not make logical sense - if you convicted him on everything else, then you as a jury are saying you believe the accuser and not the defendant. In which case - and remember this is a civil case where it is probability not beyond reasonable doubt - then why not believe the accuser on the rape charge when you believe on sexual assault. Either the jury is saying she made that up or that he did everything else but didn't go so far as rape.
Logically, he should have been convicted on all counts if they found him guilty of everything else. Which is why I think the jury essentially copped out because they realised that would be a step too far.
It’s a fine distinction but important to remember - the jury found him liable not “guilty”. This wasn’t a criminal trial so, technically, he’s not until proven so in a criminal court. Balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt and all that. Like OJ. But OJ’s case came after the criminal trial. The statute of limitations is up on this allegation, but others….?
Indeed re reasonable doubt but it still doesn't make sense. If the jury believed her on everything else, why not rape? They have accepted all her evidence and essentially her version of events but not on that one point. Why not?
Perhaps because 'rape' has a very precise legal definition?
It's perfectly possible to believe sexual assault happened but fell short of that definition?
And she has been explicit it was rape. Plus, and again, the jury believed her on her other accusations. So why did they not believe her when she said she had been raped? The definition is not an issue here.
I don't think the Jury has to give reasons for why they came to the decisions they did, but it is an interesting question nonetheless. Maybe that part of the testimony just wasn't accepted by the jury, everything else was. It tends to suggest that they did consider the evidence carefully. What I find problematic is how the defendent is at such a disadvantage in such a situation - how do you prove something didn't happen on an undefined day 30 years ago?
I don't think this case will do Trump any real harm. He will just shrug it off or it will work to his advantage. It feeds perfectly into his explanatory framework about democrats and other elites conspiring against him.
Here are some things that I’d’ve done were I Trump to prove something didn’t happen…
1) Not lie about everything all the time in a way that makes any testimony I make seem unreliable
2) Not be recorded saying you can grab women by their genitals because you’re famous
Defendants can defend themselves by being demonstrably honest people with no track record of the accused behaviour.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
I love the Ashes. But if they want to protest, they have the right to do so. I will be annoyed with them but I will sit there and defend them until I die. I love this country for that reason.
So you'd be OK if they ran onto the pitch and stopped the cricket in-play and ruined the wicket on the grounds of free speech then?
That's what your totally unbounded "right to disrupt" interpretation ends.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Because of the preventative action of the police. Note that the protest still went ahead, placards and all, but the disruptive element was disrupted before it could even start.
They sat there and held placards that said Not My King.
Which is untrue...
Evidence.
Why do you keep getting into pointless arguments with people who have opposite political opinions to you and who you know will disagree with you on everything? Seems like a waste of time to me.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards.
I am all for people being able to hold up placards and make their point known. The moment you stop others going about their lawful business then you cross the line
They sat there and held placards that said Not My King.
Which is untrue...
Evidence.
Why do you keep getting into pointless arguments with people who have opposite political opinions to you and who you know will disagree with you on everything? Seems like a waste of time to me.
Because I want them to confirm that their so-called "free speech" views are lies. Which they self-evidently are.
They sat there and held placards that said Not My King.
Which is untrue...
Evidence.
Why do you keep getting into pointless arguments with people who have opposite political opinions to you and who you know will disagree with you on everything? Seems like a waste of time to me.
Don't you disagree with me on basically everything too? Why are you responding to me?
Having just returned from foreign parts I have had a chance to look in details at last weeks's local elections results. One that caught my eye was Liverpool Waterfront North. I don't know whether it has been mentioned before but the Labour candidate won with 91 votes ( that's votes received not majority). Apparently it is an area due for redevelopment - but is it right to base the franchise on future populations?
The LGBCE is required to use the estimated figures for 5 years into the future, and Waterfront North is projected to have 4,085 electors then.
I didn't know that. When did they changed the rules? I'm sure it used to be based on current electorates.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
I love the Ashes. But if they want to protest, they have the right to do so. I will be annoyed with them but I will sit there and defend them until I die. I love this country for that reason.
So you'd be OK if they ran onto the pitch and stopped the cricket in-play and ruined the wicket on the grounds of free speech then?
That's what your totally unbounded "right to disrupt" interpretation ends.
Disrupt it, outside the venue, yes. Inside the venue they can expect to be removed and receive a ban from the venue. Cause criminal damage, and they can certainly expect to get arrested.
They sat there and held placards that said Not My King.
Which is untrue...
Evidence.
Why do you keep getting into pointless arguments with people who have opposite political opinions to you and who you know will disagree with you on everything? Seems like a waste of time to me.
Why feed a troll? If we ignore it maybe it will go find a bridge to haunt
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
I love the Ashes. But if they want to protest, they have the right to do so. I will be annoyed with them but I will sit there and defend them until I die. I love this country for that reason.
So you'd be OK if they ran onto the pitch and stopped the cricket in-play and ruined the wicket on the grounds of free speech then?
That's what your totally unbounded "right to disrupt" interpretation ends.
Comrade..you are such a diehard, true blue Tory of the highest calibre who relentlessly bangs the blue drum.. "A double plus" for effort, but your continuous championing of all things Tory and Right Wing is very fucking tedious indeed....
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
Totally agree. While I have qualms over the Police's actions, there is no doubt (as you say) that they wanted to cause some sort of public statement / trouble and overshadow the Coronation. I really don't understand why they didn't stay in bed and ignore the whole thing.
My view is that if people choose to be disruptive, they should not expect the police to protect them from others who would like to be disruptive towards them.
You condone assault? Nice.
There is such a thing as fighting words. Organisations like XR and Just Stop Oil are trying to provoke a fight.
In the case of XR, I wouldn't really agree with this. They're primarily interested in gaining attention, and were specifically set up to be non-violent.
A group somewhat more like what you're describing is the 1990's group Reclaim The Streets ; XR are much more mild in their tactics compared.
Yes, and they wanted to gain attention by being disruptive at the event. Given they were foiled at that they are now trying to gain attention by claiming they were victims of some sort of Gestapo crap.
The grievance is almost entirely manufactured, and I honestly couldn't give a toss.
They are hugely self-entitled upper middle-class brats.
If disruptive is defined by chanting and waving a placard, then nearly all demonstrations could be classed as disruptive. This is exactly the kind of danger many of us, and I have no problem to include myself in this, have been warning of with these new laws since last year and before.
On the follow-up point, the Suffragettes were also upper-middle class, and much more disruptive than Republic ; does their social class mean that their protests were empty, immoral, or useless ?
Apparently Father Ted and Father Dougal have gone into hiding to avoid arrest following their disruptive protest outside a cinema.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
I love the Ashes. But if they want to protest, they have the right to do so. I will be annoyed with them but I will sit there and defend them until I die. I love this country for that reason.
So you'd be OK if they ran onto the pitch and stopped the cricket in-play and ruined the wicket on the grounds of free speech then?
It would certainly liven up the world's most boring "sport"!
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards.
I am all for people being able to hold up placards and make their point known. The moment you stop others going about their lawful business then you cross the line
Yes they literally were. Hence why the Met has apologised.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards.
I am all for people being able to hold up placards and make their point known. The moment you stop others going about their lawful business then you cross the line
Yes they literally were. Hence why the Met has apologised.
Apologised for six of the 53 arrested, the remaining 47 are on bail.
It does seem a bit concerning if a serious allegation of wrongdoing can be proven by one persons account backed up by two people they spoke to around the time, with no other significant evidence, and nearly 30 years passing. How is anyone going to defend themselves against that? You would just be there saying 'it didn't happen', and hoping the jury/judge believes you over the complainant.
It's not remotely concerning. Concerning is how he's avoided accountability for so long.
Say someone made an allegation about something that you did 'around 1995 or 1996', and they spoke on the phone to two friends who remember it at the time, and this was the extent of the evidence. You don't know any of the people involved. There is a legal case against you based on the fact that the fact that the allegation was corroborated by two people makes it likely to have happened on the 'balance of probabilities'. Your witness statement - that you don't have any recollection of the event occuring - has no weight because of the amount of time that has passed. How would you defend yourself against it?
As I said I agree with you. He may be guilty but it is a hard one to defend yourself against.
The big underlying problem I have with all of this is that people look first at who is being accused to say whether they are guilty or not, rather than the crime / evidence. I am sure if Joe B had been accused of sexual assault in, let's say, Florida with exactly the same evidence and testimony, @kinabalu, @ydoethur et al would be on here telling us how the case is so weak, it's politically motivated etc. It is a sad state of affairs when you view justice not impartially but through partisan lens.
I'd broadly agree with your analysis but note that, in the case of sexual assault, an allegation of 'misconduct' is often now enough to ruin the career of a male politician, although there are some curious exceptions.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
The Aussies deserve disruption for picking those fucking cheats Steve Smith and David Warner.
Having just returned from foreign parts I have had a chance to look in details at last weeks's local elections results. One that caught my eye was Liverpool Waterfront North. I don't know whether it has been mentioned before but the Labour candidate won with 91 votes ( that's votes received not majority). Apparently it is an area due for redevelopment - but is it right to base the franchise on future populations?
The LGBCE is required to use the estimated figures for 5 years into the future, and Waterfront North is projected to have 4,085 electors then.
I didn't know that. When did they changed the rules? I'm sure it used to be based on current electorates.
For the purpose of sub-paragraph (3)(a) the Local Government Boundary Commission for England must have regard to any change in the number or distribution of local government electors in the area of the county council which is likely to take place within the period of five years immediately following the making of the recommendations.
They use information on current and forecast electorates.
There are good reasons for it, if you know a sizable amount of electors will be coming in within that relatively short span of time and would therefore disrupt the electoral equality that is being aimed for with new wards.
But I still think population would be better, and if your projections are wrong (either through miscalculation or due to events) then you end up with unequal arrangements you were seeking to avoid.
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards.
I am all for people being able to hold up placards and make their point known. The moment you stop others going about their lawful business then you cross the line
Yes they literally were. Hence why the Met has apologised.
Apologised for six of the 53 arrested, the remaining 47 are on bail.
Why don't you have a re-read of what the user in question said.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
Totally agree. While I have qualms over the Police's actions, there is no doubt (as you say) that they wanted to cause some sort of public statement / trouble and overshadow the Coronation. I really don't understand why they didn't stay in bed and ignore the whole thing.
My view is that if people choose to be disruptive, they should not expect the police to protect them from others who would like to be disruptive towards them.
You condone assault? Nice.
There is such a thing as fighting words. Organisations like XR and Just Stop Oil are trying to provoke a fight.
In the case of XR, I wouldn't really agree with this. They're primarily interested in gaining attention, and were specifically set up to be non-violent.
A group somewhat more like what you're describing is the 1990's group Reclaim The Streets ; XR are much more mild in their tactics compared.
Yes, and they wanted to gain attention by being disruptive at the event. Given they were foiled at that they are now trying to gain attention by claiming they were victims of some sort of Gestapo crap.
The grievance is almost entirely manufactured, and I honestly couldn't give a toss.
They are hugely self-entitled upper middle-class brats.
If disruptive is defined by chanting and waving a placard, then nearly all demonstrations could be classed as disruptive. This is exactly the kind of danger many of us, and I have no problem to include myself in this, have been warning of with these new laws since last year and before.
On the follow-up point, the Suffragettes were also upper-middle class, and much more disruptive than Republic ; does their social class mean that their protests were empty, immoral, or useless ?
You must have missed the behaviour of Just Stop Oil, Animal Rebellion and XR over the past year then.
They want to make themselves heroes or martyrs, and either suits their purpose.
I couldn't give a shit. I'm tired of their disruptive antics in the belief they're modern Suffragettes, which they aren't and even if they were arguably delayed women getting suffrage rather than accelerating it.
They sat there and held placards that said Not My King.
Which is untrue...
Evidence.
Why do you keep getting into pointless arguments with people who have opposite political opinions to you and who you know will disagree with you on everything? Seems like a waste of time to me.
You must have missed the behaviour of Just Stop Oil, Animal Rebellion and XR over the past year then.
They want to make themselves heroes or martyrs, and either suits their purpose.
I couldn't give a shit. I'm tired of their disruptive antics in the belief they're modern Suffragettes, which they aren't and even if they were arguably delayed women getting suffrage rather than accelerating it.
Thank you for confirming that you are anti freedom of speech. Mate.
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards.
I am all for people being able to hold up placards and make their point known. The moment you stop others going about their lawful business then you cross the line
Yes they literally were. Hence why the Met has apologised.
Apologised for six of the 53 arrested, the remaining 47 are on bail.
Why don't you have a re-read of what the user in question said.
They said that there were people with placards that were not arrested, which is a fact. A group of six were, for which the police apologised. For the remaining 47 they did not, and they are on bail for a range of charges.
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards.
I am all for people being able to hold up placards and make their point known. The moment you stop others going about their lawful business then you cross the line
@RobD here we are, highlighted for you. This is untrue, I am not sure why you are unwilling to concede this point.
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards.
I am all for people being able to hold up placards and make their point known. The moment you stop others going about their lawful business then you cross the line
@RobD here we are, highlighted for you. This is untrue, I am not sure why you are unwilling to concede this point.
See my reply. Unless all people with placards were arrested what they said was correct. There were people with placards that were not arrested, and there was a small group which were for which the police apologised. Both factual statements.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
It does seem a bit concerning if a serious allegation of wrongdoing can be proven by one persons account backed up by two people they spoke to around the time, with no other significant evidence, and nearly 30 years passing. How is anyone going to defend themselves against that? You would just be there saying 'it didn't happen', and hoping the jury/judge believes you over the complainant.
It's not remotely concerning. Concerning is how he's avoided accountability for so long.
Say someone made an allegation about something that you did 'around 1995 or 1996', and they spoke on the phone to two friends who remember it at the time, and this was the extent of the evidence. You don't know any of the people involved. There is a legal case against you based on the fact that the fact that the allegation was corroborated by two people makes it likely to have happened on the 'balance of probabilities'. Your witness statement - that you don't have any recollection of the event occuring - has no weight because of the amount of time that has passed. How would you defend yourself against it?
As I said I agree with you. He may be guilty but it is a hard one to defend yourself against.
The big underlying problem I have with all of this is that people look first at who is being accused to say whether they are guilty or not, rather than the crime / evidence. I am sure if Joe B had been accused of sexual assault in, let's say, Florida with exactly the same evidence and testimony, @kinabalu, @ydoethur et al would be on here telling us how the case is so weak, it's politically motivated etc. It is a sad state of affairs when you view justice not impartially but through partisan lens.
I'd broadly agree with your analysis but note that, in the case of sexual assault, an allegation of 'misconduct' is often now enough to ruin the career of a male politician, although there are some curious exceptions.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards.
I am all for people being able to hold up placards and make their point known. The moment you stop others going about their lawful business then you cross the line
Yes they literally were. Hence why the Met has apologised.
Apologised for six of the 53 arrested, the remaining 47 are on bail.
Why don't you have a re-read of what the user in question said.
They said that there were people with placards that were not arrested, which is a fact. A group of six were, for which the police apologised. For the remaining 47 they did not, and they are on bail for a range of charges.
I would just comment that there was quite a group of demonstrators in full view with not my King posters in the live coverage and while the MET have apologised for the arrest of 6 they did not apologise for the other arrests
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
If memory serves that was part of the premise of the Horrible Histories musical number on the subject (though with disapproval that that was the case).
Granted a comedy musical number may not be the most reliable way to absorb history, but I'll take it.
Must say I've been shocked by the reaction to the Coronation at my school. The staff divide pretty much like most adults. A substantial number of enthusiasts running around putting up displays, pictures and Coronation themed activities. A large number of agnostics like myself. A minority not impressed at all. The children on the other hand. Oh boy. They simply weren't having it at all. By a huge and very vehement margin. The displays are all down now.
Yeah for some reason the young people are almost all vehement republicans in my experience. The Royal family are seen as "Tories" - the ultimate Gen Z indult - ie rich entitled posh people, and thus worthy of extreme scorn.
And yet, they view Andrew Tate as a hero.
They don't. They really don't. There are some, but probably about as many as young royalists or Tories. The Tate thing is just another moral panic.
I am not so sure. The "Manosphere" can be a pretty toxic place, but has a lot of sympathisers. We get them on here at times.
There were people with anti monarchy placards at the coronation, they were not arrested. One small group were arrested I believe of 6 people and hopefully there was intelligence to believe they planned more than holding up some placards.
I am all for people being able to hold up placards and make their point known. The moment you stop others going about their lawful business then you cross the line
@RobD here we are, highlighted for you. This is untrue, I am not sure why you are unwilling to concede this point.
See my reply. Unless all people with placards were arrested what they said was correct. There were people with placards that were not arrested, and there was a small group which were for which the police apologised. Both factual statements.
Entirely correct and not sure why @Dialup is continuing his argument
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of trac You can achieve it by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) but that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity.
It does seem a bit concerning if a serious allegation of wrongdoing can be proven by one persons account backed up by two people they spoke to around the time, with no other significant evidence, and nearly 30 years passing. How is anyone going to defend themselves against that? You would just be there saying 'it didn't happen', and hoping the jury/judge believes you over the complainant.
It's not remotely concerning. Concerning is how he's avoided accountability for so long.
Say someone made an allegation about something that you did 'around 1995 or 1996', and they spoke on the phone to two friends who remember it at the time, and this was the extent of the evidence. You don't know any of the people involved. There is a legal case against you based on the fact that the fact that the allegation was corroborated by two people makes it likely to have happened on the 'balance of probabilities'. Your witness statement - that you don't have any recollection of the event occuring - has no weight because of the amount of time that has passed. Would you defend yourself against it? Or would you just accept that it must be true?
It depends. Am I Norman Normal or am I a hardcore misogynist with a 40 year track record of using and abusing women?
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
XR have not been able to organise anything like that level of disruption in five years.
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
No. Just realistic.
But XR haven't been able to organise protest on anything like this scale ; what you're describing, relative to what's happened over the last five years in the UK, is not really the daily reality ; and this is partly because police already had tools to restrict the scope and regularity of these kinds of protests.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
Gandhi's lining up to be struck on the head. Even better, Thich Quan Duc's self-immolation. That's hardcore protest. I look forward to a Labour government and a lineup of folk on £200k willingly volunteering to be castrated because of marginal tax rates
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
Gandhi's lining up to be struck on the head. Even better, Thich Quan Duc's self-immolation. That's hardcore protest.
I thought Gandhi had been cancelled these days for being a little racist?
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
No one has a right to disrupt anything.
That's the difference - at the Grand National, there was a peaceful protest outside the course. The Merseyside Police took no action against the protesters who were non violent and simply expressed a view about the sport which it was their right to do irrespective of whether those attending supported it or not.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
Legislation and policing changing because protest is changing, is the bottom line isn’t it?
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
It’s strange how some constitutional rights can be radically changed in a few months, yet some bloke can get to sit on a throne due to a millennium-old outdated law.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
Gandhi's lining up to be struck on the head. Even better, Thich Quan Duc's self-immolation. That's hardcore protest.
I thought Gandhi had been cancelled these days for being a little racist?
The right insist he has. But then again they insist everyone who in the slightest counters their narrative has. Sure some loons have. But that doesn't negate the point.
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
Gandhi's lining up to be struck on the head. Even better, Thich Quan Duc's self-immolation. That's hardcore protest.
I thought Gandhi had been cancelled these days for being a little racist?
The right insist he has.
Well I am right wing by any stretch I still regard Gandhi as mostly a good man but flawed, only people I have seen that don't think that anymore now his racist side was revealed have been people who describe themselves as left.
We are all flawed in some ways and that doesn't mean we can't also do good things
I am off to that London again tomorrow. How many times do I have to say insulting things about King Chuck and Queen Horse before I get arrested?
Three times I reckon
I bet the republican protestors would have disrupted the coronation procession if they thought they'd get away with it, though.
Losing absolutely no sleep over it.
If they disrupted it, so what? If they didn't hurt anyone, it is their right to do so. Or does freedom of speech not count here, mate?
Free speech doesn't mean you can actively disrupt events.
If it did we'd have permanent chaos based on whoever was most motivated to cause it.
In order to protect the freedoms we enjoy it is necessary to arrest the innocent.
If this had been an FA cup and anti-football protestors had tried to disrupt fans looking to enjoy the final we'd have heard much less of this argument.
Not from me.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Utterly bonkers.
Anti-Apartheid protesters disrupted cricket matches in the past. I expect in a few decades their actions will be the sort of thing that traditionalists will point to when extolling the historic virtues of Britain being on the right side of history, as they now also laud anti-slavery campaigners and the like, provided the disruption they caused is sufficiently far in the past.
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
Not really. I don't think disruptive protests of that kind do anything but alienate and delay the protestors objective being achieved. And I think that was true of the Suffragettes too:
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
Gandhi's lining up to be struck on the head. Even better, Thich Quan Duc's self-immolation. That's hardcore protest.
I thought Gandhi had been cancelled these days for being a little racist?
The right insist he has.
Well I am right wing by any stretch I still regard Gandhi as mostly a good man but flawed, only people I have seen that don't think that anymore now his racist side was revealed have been people who describe themselves as left.
We are all flawed in some ways and that doesn't mean we can't also do good things
Gandhi was a devout Hindu. Your Karma is an inherent belief. As is the idea that you can't do owt about it in this life.
Comments
I've seen them lauded for their wisdom on Brexit - because it's "economic madness" - and also lauded for their wisdom on Scottish Independence- because, um, it's also "economic madness".
Of course what it's really about is rebelling against the establishment regardless of consequence, which is a time honoured proclivity of youth down the centuries.
If you think it isn't you are genuinely mad.
It is an avowed supporter of violently overthrowing the American government, and is funded ultimately by Donald Trump and his supporters.
Putting stuff out from it about Biden is the equivalent of using the Deutsches Nachrichten Buro to demonstrate the criminality of Jews in Germany in the 1930s.
So I say again - do you have a reliable source? Put up from a reputable news agency, or shut up.
I don't think this case will do Trump any real harm. He will just shrug it off or it will work to his advantage. It feeds perfectly into his explanatory framework about democrats and other elites conspiring against him.
Note that I haven't read the paper and don't have time right now (and quite possibly I lack the expertise to come to any reasonable judgement on it). Just a slight alarm bell ringing, Frontiers journals would not be high up my list to publish in - I wouldn't rule it out, would take it case by case, journal by journal, but I have never published with them.
ETA: I mean, if this stands up, I'd be expecting to get it into NEJM, bmj* or the Lancet** or similar, at least.
* for all that I've heard it described as the Sun of medical journals
** yes, I know, but still high profile
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/
The one that publishes pieces from The Federalist and Salon, MSNBC and Fox, and so forth i.e. it actually gives a range of views on its site that everyone can look at? Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think Nazi Germany really allowed different opinions to be expressed. Quite the opposite.
There is only one of us who has said openly they want to ban one of the two main political parties in the US. And that wasn't me. You really has no self-awareness at all. I honestly believe you would quite happily shoot people who don't agree with you, the only caveat being you might think that is too good for them.
You really are off your rocker. If you had any power, you actually would be dangerous. Fortunately, you don't.
If they want to disrupt the Ashes then go ahead. It is their right.
Not a shred of evidence has been produced to say they were up to more than a bit of placard waving.
A group somewhat more like what you're describing is the 1990's group Reclaim The Streets ; XR are much more mild in their tactics compared.
1) Not lie about everything all the time in a way that makes any testimony I make seem unreliable
2) Not be recorded saying you can grab women by their genitals because you’re famous
Defendants can defend themselves by being demonstrably honest people with no track record of the accused behaviour.
Let's look at the facts: they made some placards and some here seem to want to shut that down. Hypocrisy.
https://apnews.com/article/poland-ukraine-russia-victory-day-protest-warsaw-850032b48d8faa9468fe721a41322f26
Won't someone think of the poor suitcases.
Also agree with you it won't do him harm although it may hit on the Independent vote.
You don't know any of the people involved.
There is a legal case against you based on the fact that the fact that the allegation was corroborated by two people makes it likely to have happened on the 'balance of probabilities'.
Your witness statement - that you don't have any recollection of the event occuring - has no weight because of the amount of time that has passed.
Would you defend yourself against it? Or would you just accept that it must be true?
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1656026067147149316
The grievance is almost entirely manufactured, and I honestly couldn't give a toss.
They are hugely self-entitled upper middle-class brats.
Still close, no clear favourite for the second leg.
That is just a fact. If you want to campaign against it at least start by getting the legals right.
The logic fail alone gets me.
Just a pity that the police appeared to turn a blind eye at the time.
The big underlying problem I have with all of this is that people look first at who is being accused to say whether they are guilty or not, rather than the crime / evidence. I am sure if Joe B had been accused of sexual assault in, let's say, Florida with exactly the same evidence and testimony, @kinabalu, @ydoethur et al would be on here telling us how the case is so weak, it's politically motivated etc. It is a sad state of affairs when you view justice not impartially but through partisan lens.
On the follow-up point, the Suffragettes were also upper-middle class, and much more disruptive than Republic ; does their social class mean that their protests were empty, immoral, or useless ?
Honestly!
The true freedom of speech advocates are people like me.
That's what your totally unbounded "right to disrupt" interpretation ends.
The other group were intent on stopping the race itself - they tried to break into the racecourse and attach themselves to the fences in an attempt to make sure the race didn't happen. The Police took action to secure the course and ensure the race went ahead.
The former was entirely reasonable and I would defend the right of anyone to non-violent non-disruptive protest in a democratic society.
As far as I understand, the protest against the Coronation was also the former - there seem to be attempts in the media to make it out to be a violent disruptive action but I don't see that.
I'm not surprised the authoritarian Labour Party now wants to keep this piece of absurd legislation - they are as bad as the Conservatives in that regard. It seems unfortunately a pattern across the world currently that in all societies there is a determination from the authorities to maintain order and curtail basic rights of protest and disagreement - how, for example are we any better than the Chinese in Hong Kong on this evidence? We're in no position to lecture President Xi on his many shortcomings if he treat those who are simply making a point so badly.
A bit like that one "Take Back Control". Whatever happened to that?
I am all for people being able to hold up placards and make their point known. The moment you stop others going about their lawful business then you cross the line
I'm struggling to think of what the Aussies have done that would justify disruptive protests at the Ashes matches, though.
I'd broadly agree with your analysis but note that, in the case of sexual assault, an allegation of 'misconduct' is often now enough to ruin the career of a male politician, although there are some curious exceptions.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/02/americas/justin-trudeau-groping-allegations/index.html
They should have been banned for life.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/20/schedule/2
For the purpose of sub-paragraph (3)(a) the Local Government Boundary Commission for England must have regard to any change in the number or distribution of local government electors in the area of the county council which is likely to take place within the period of five years immediately following the making of the recommendations.
They use information on current and forecast electorates.
There are good reasons for it, if you know a sizable amount of electors will be coming in within that relatively short span of time and would therefore disrupt the electoral equality that is being aimed for with new wards.
But I still think population would be better, and if your projections are wrong (either through miscalculation or due to events) then you end up with unequal arrangements you were seeking to avoid.
They want to make themselves heroes or martyrs, and either suits their purpose.
I couldn't give a shit. I'm tired of their disruptive antics in the belief they're modern Suffragettes, which they aren't and even if they were arguably delayed women getting suffrage rather than accelerating it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/09/rishi-sunak-unexpected-winner-last-weeks-local-elections/
I no longer think Keir Starmer has anything to fear.
You prefer the alternative, scrap the law, don’t change policing, and just stand back and let XR just get on with it - nothing moving on the motorways, no Grand National, no ashes tests, no fa cup final, no Wimbledon, no Derby - the coronation wrecked in the eyes of the world making our country look like a basket case?
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of traction today because of the proto-Wokey vibe it gave off.
You can achieve a lot more by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) and that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity that moves people.
https://news.yahoo.com/tara-reade-joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegation-205643745.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
I wonder why this didn't get pursued. Even the Guardian thought it wrong:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/28/joe-biden-sexual-assault-allegations-why-has-media-ignored-claims
I think at the roots you are a strong Conservative, MoonRabbit ;,)
Granted a comedy musical number may not be the most reliable way to absorb history, but I'll take it.
You're welcome
You’re welcome too.
"Although non-historians often assumed the WSPU was primarily responsible for obtaining women's suffrage, historians are much more skeptical about its contribution. It is generally agreed that the WSPU revitalized the suffrage campaign initially, but that its escalation of militancy after 1912 impeded reform. Recent studies have shifted from claiming that the WSPU was responsible for women's suffrage to portraying it as an early form of radical feminism that sought to liberate women from a male-centered gender system."
In other words it gets a lot of trac
You can achieve it by a quiet dignified protest (for example, Thunberg's school protest or Rosa Parks refusing to move) but that's precisely because it involves self-sacrifice and dignity. You hold onto whatever fantasy about me that you need to, honey.
The implication also seems to be that if the law doesn't change, then the protests would escalate in size, but that hasn't happened either. XR are no closer now to being able to stop the Grand National or Wimbledon than when they began, in 2018 ; media coverage has greatly increased, though.
I look forward to a Labour government and a lineup of folk on £200k willingly volunteering to be castrated because of marginal tax rates
But then again they insist everyone who in the slightest counters their narrative has.
Sure some loons have.
But that doesn't negate the point.
We are all flawed in some ways and that doesn't mean we can't also do good things