numbertwelve said:

nico679 said:

Of course you should be able to walk wherever you like. But you should also use common sense.

The police should have dealt with the matter more sensitively but the individual involved should also bear in mind that the police priority is to maintain order .

Just as a point of order - Would we use the “use common sense” argument if we were talking about the way a woman “should” dress to avoid attracting unwelcome attention? That is an argument that has been widely accepted to be misogynistic - on the grounds that it’s blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator. What is the difference here?

That's not a point of order. It's a bullshit false analogy.

I take your points on board which are fair and reasonable. Personally I would use common sense and think should I put myself at risk just in case.

I’m not implying those in the march would have reacted violently . The police could have handled the situation much better and should have just stressed the concern over the safety of the individual.

StillWaters said:

bondegezou said:

StillWaters said:

Mexicanpete said:

TOPPING said:

She needs to tell us what nomination she made when she got married about her house for tax purposes.

Easy peasy.

We don't even care what her husband said or pocketed upon sale of his house.

We just want to know what she said - or didn't say - to HMRC.

Is the issue.

If the police and HMRC request that information fair enough, but she has no requirement to furnish you, Laura Kuenssberg or the Daily Mail with that kind of detail.

No requirement but I think a duty.

She’s in public life. There has been a legitimate question asked. She has the proof one way or another - and is refusing to provide it

A legitimate question was asked about what did the Conservative Party know about the Menzies affair when. They have the proof one way or another - and are refusing to provide it.

A legitimate question was asked about Rishi Sunak's green card status while Chancellor. Sunak has the proof one way or another - and is refusing to provide it.

A legitimate question was asked about how Liz Truss included an anti-semitic comment in her book. She has the proof one way or another - and is refusing to provide it.


Etc. etc.

No - you are interpreting “legitimate question” in an entirely partisan way.

Rayner - *may* have defrauded the taxpayer. We are the victims

Menzies - may have misused party funds. That’s up to the party what they want to do.

Green card - not legitimate at all. If the US authorities want to create an issue it’s up to them. But nothing to do with anyone here

Truss - I think she (or someone on her behalf) gave some kind of explanation. But lifting a dodgy quote is sloppy writing / editing anyway, not defrauding the taxpayer

So the three counter examples you have cited are all political attacks. Not a claim of potentially defrauding the tax payer

I am unclear why defrauding the tax payer is the only act that can give rise to legitimate questions, while other malfeasance is apparently no-one else’s business. Menzies may have broken the law. Is whether a lawmaker has broken the law not a question of utmost importance? The Conservative Party, which claims to be a party of law and order, may have chosen not to report a crime to avoid embarrassment. Does not unreported crime represent a threat to all of us?

Sunak may have broken US immigration law. I don’t want our MPs breaking laws in the UK, and I don’t want them breaking laws in other countries! It matters to voters whether Sunak is someone who obeys the rules or not. (I mean, we know he isn’t someone who obeys the rules given he’s been fined by the police for lawbreaking twice.)

An explanation was given for Truss’s use of an antisemitic slur. It was a pretty minimal explanation, that she’d seen others provide the false quote. We don’t know where she saw this. I am curious what antisemitic sources Truss might have been perusing to write her book. Labour (and the LibDems) have suspended MPs over possible antisemitism. I’m unclear why the Conservatives are so blasé about the matter.

If defrauding the tax payer is the only crime that matters, a legitimate question was asked about what legal advice Michele Donelan received when she libelled Prof Sang and cost the UK taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds. She has the proof one way or another - and is refusing to provide it.

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

.

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

One for some of you on here - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stop-pretending-prostitution-work-spectator-988rbjhnl

Hah. Paywalled. Can’t read it. Pff!

I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.

She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.

Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.

As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"

Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.

It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.

I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.

On the Yorkshire Ripper's victims - see here -
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/14/one-womans-perspective/, for instance.

Or the various articles on the attitude to girls who were the victims in gang grooming scandals.

Isn't the problem precisely that while prostitution is not illegal, advertising, solicitation, brothels etc are illegal so it ends up in the hands of criminals?

And anything in the hands of criminals isn't going to be safe.

If you want it to be safe, then it needs to be completely legal. Every step of the way. Eliminate pimps and criminals from the mix, instead have a sex workers union etc standing up for their rights.

Countries whereby it is completely legalised seem to have far lower levels of abuse than those whereby it's either quasi or fully illegal.

Prohibition does not work.

Do you think Hamas should be prohibited?

Interesting question, I see what you did there.

Hamas are a terrorism group. Terrorism is illegal. Therefore it makes sense for them to be prohibited.

Of course the prohibition of terrorism doesn't eliminate all terrorism but I'm not so liberal that I advocate the legalisation of murder.

I do believe that currently illicit drugs, non-illicit but harmful drugs like tobacco, sex trade etc while all a bad idea should be legal but discouraged.

Murder should remain illegal, yes.

Thanks for the answer. So, prohibition does work in some situations and doesn’t in others. We need to dig into the specifics of what is being prohibited.

Donkeys said:

numbertwelve said:

nico679 said:

Of course you should be able to walk wherever you like. But you should also use common sense.

The police should have dealt with the matter more sensitively but the individual involved should also bear in mind that the police priority is to maintain order .

Just as a point of order - Would we use the “use common sense” argument if we were talking about the way a woman “should” dress to avoid attracting unwelcome attention? That is an argument that has been widely accepted to be misogynistic - on the grounds that it’s blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator. What is the difference here?

That's not a point of order. It's a bullshit false analogy.

I disagree. It is a position of either someone deserves criticism for the way they present themselves in case it causes “trouble” for them, or instead we (rightly IMHO) blame the perpetrator of any violence or crime that arises from that.

I dont have a problem with the police telling the individual in question to be careful, or warning them that tensions are running high and that they need to look after themself because they are worried for their safety, and perhaps they would be best having a colleague escort them away from the area. That is the common sense approach. Where they got it wrong was giving the impression that the person’s very presence there was in some way wrong.

boulay said:

Leon said:

This one is called “A Portrait of @Cyclefree Contemplating the Sex Lives of Several PB-ers”

I thought that was called “Heathener with her Tory friends.”

Actually made me chuckle out loud in the Musee D’Orsay

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

.

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

One for some of you on here - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stop-pretending-prostitution-work-spectator-988rbjhnl

Hah. Paywalled. Can’t read it. Pff!

I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.

She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.

Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.

As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"

Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.

It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.

I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.

On the Yorkshire Ripper's victims - see here -
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/14/one-womans-perspective/, for instance.

Or the various articles on the attitude to girls who were the victims in gang grooming scandals.

Isn't the problem precisely that while prostitution is not illegal, advertising, solicitation, brothels etc are illegal so it ends up in the hands of criminals?

And anything in the hands of criminals isn't going to be safe.

If you want it to be safe, then it needs to be completely legal. Every step of the way. Eliminate pimps and criminals from the mix, instead have a sex workers union etc standing up for their rights.

Countries whereby it is completely legalised seem to have far lower levels of abuse than those whereby it's either quasi or fully illegal.

Prohibition does not work.

Do you think Hamas should be prohibited?

Interesting question, I see what you did there.

Hamas are a terrorism group. Terrorism is illegal. Therefore it makes sense for them to be prohibited.

Of course the prohibition of terrorism doesn't eliminate all terrorism but I'm not so liberal that I advocate the legalisation of murder.

I do believe that currently illicit drugs, non-illicit but harmful drugs like tobacco, sex trade etc while all a bad idea should be legal but discouraged.

Murder should remain illegal, yes.

Thanks for the answer. So, prohibition does work in some situations and doesn’t in others. We need to dig into the specifics of what is being prohibited.

Prohibition doesn't really work in any circumstances.

Has murder been eliminated due to prohibition? Has rape? Has terrorism?

However those are so evil and so harmful to others they should remain prohibited.

Those activites where harm is to the participant in the activity rather than third parties, then education combined with regulation, is better than prohibition.

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

.

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

One for some of you on here - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stop-pretending-prostitution-work-spectator-988rbjhnl

Hah. Paywalled. Can’t read it. Pff!

I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.

She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.

Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.

As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"

Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.

It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.

I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.

On the Yorkshire Ripper's victims - see here -
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/14/one-womans-perspective/, for instance.

Or the various articles on the attitude to girls who were the victims in gang grooming scandals.

Isn't the problem precisely that while prostitution is not illegal, advertising, solicitation, brothels etc are illegal so it ends up in the hands of criminals?

And anything in the hands of criminals isn't going to be safe.

If you want it to be safe, then it needs to be completely legal. Every step of the way. Eliminate pimps and criminals from the mix, instead have a sex workers union etc standing up for their rights.

Countries whereby it is completely legalised seem to have far lower levels of abuse than those whereby it's either quasi or fully illegal.

Prohibition does not work.

Do you think Hamas should be prohibited?

Interesting question, I see what you did there.

Hamas are a terrorism group. Terrorism is illegal. Therefore it makes sense for them to be prohibited.

Of course the prohibition of terrorism doesn't eliminate all terrorism but I'm not so liberal that I advocate the legalisation of murder.

I do believe that currently illicit drugs, non-illicit but harmful drugs like tobacco, sex trade etc while all a bad idea should be legal but discouraged.

Murder should remain illegal, yes.

Thanks for the answer. So, prohibition does work in some situations and doesn’t in others. We need to dig into the specifics of what is being prohibited.

Prohibition doesn't really work in any circumstances.

Has murder been eliminated due to prohibition? Has rape? Has terrorism?

However those are so evil and so harmful to others they should remain prohibited.

Those activites where harm is to the participant in the activity rather than third parties, then education combined with regulation, is better than prohibition.

Murder is, IIRC, at a historical low point.

boulay said:

Quite a useful quick guide to potential runners and riders for Trump’s VP pick.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/21/trump-vp-pick-shortlist

Jeez what a shower.

In case I ever get a reputation as a deep thinker, I cite this as rebuttal

"Prometheus Is A Secret Star Trek V Remake", Giant Freakin Robot, Feb 26, 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AGbEKKpDes

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

.

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

One for some of you on here - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stop-pretending-prostitution-work-spectator-988rbjhnl

Hah. Paywalled. Can’t read it. Pff!

I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.

She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.

Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.

As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"

Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.

It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.

I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.

On the Yorkshire Ripper's victims - see here -
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/14/one-womans-perspective/, for instance.

Or the various articles on the attitude to girls who were the victims in gang grooming scandals.

Isn't the problem precisely that while prostitution is not illegal, advertising, solicitation, brothels etc are illegal so it ends up in the hands of criminals?

And anything in the hands of criminals isn't going to be safe.

If you want it to be safe, then it needs to be completely legal. Every step of the way. Eliminate pimps and criminals from the mix, instead have a sex workers union etc standing up for their rights.

Countries whereby it is completely legalised seem to have far lower levels of abuse than those whereby it's either quasi or fully illegal.

Prohibition does not work.

Do you think Hamas should be prohibited?

Interesting question, I see what you did there.

Hamas are a terrorism group. Terrorism is illegal. Therefore it makes sense for them to be prohibited.

Of course the prohibition of terrorism doesn't eliminate all terrorism but I'm not so liberal that I advocate the legalisation of murder.

I do believe that currently illicit drugs, non-illicit but harmful drugs like tobacco, sex trade etc while all a bad idea should be legal but discouraged.

Murder should remain illegal, yes.

Thanks for the answer. So, prohibition does work in some situations and doesn’t in others. We need to dig into the specifics of what is being prohibited.

Prohibition doesn't really work in any circumstances.

Has murder been eliminated due to prohibition? Has rape? Has terrorism?

However those are so evil and so harmful to others they should remain prohibited.

Those activites where harm is to the participant in the activity rather than third parties, then education combined with regulation, is better than prohibition.

That's an interesting dividing line, which I think works very neatly for first and third parties, but what about second parties?

Certain workplace practices are prohibited in the interests of making workplace safer and protecting employees from unscrupulous employers, even though employees might consent to unsafe working practices in exchange for a financial consideration.

How far is a state entitled to go with this sort of regulation? Might it extend to prohibiting prostitution on the grounds of the harms suffered by the prostitute? (And arguably society more generally by normalising the idea of a woman's body being an item to be bought)

Trump's lawyers have filed, for about the 10th time, to delay his criminal trial in NY, claiming he cannot get a fair jury even though his lawyers just participated fully in the usual selection process for a jury.

It's amazing how many tactics are available to rich people to disrupt legal processes.

I think he truly thought he would be able to delay all his criminal trials beyond the election and even though this one is his best prospect of success (be it acquittal or hung jury), he did not mentally prepare for actually facing it.

On topic, from the article:

"IF Fareham goes NOC or If the Conservatives are no longer the largest party, that will be clear evidence we are in mid-90s electoral territory..."

No it won't. Even good sets of local elections for a particular party have areas of weakness, and even poor ones have areas of strength.

You can only really get a read from local elections by looking more broadly across the country, where local variations in the issues and campaigning strength average out. If the Tories lose Fareham AND a load of places like Fareham, you may well be right. If they lose Fareham but do surprisingly okay elsewhere, you probably aren't.

In 2023, the Tories gained Slough from Labour and added seats and the mayoralty at the expense of the Lib Dems in Bedford as well as grabbing control of Torbay. The Greens were hammered in Brighton. Those are interesting results at a local level (perhaps particularly Brighton as the only Green MP represents a Brighton constituency).But if all you looked at from the last local elections was those results, you'd get a totally misleading picture about what's happening nationally. The Conservatives said farewell to more than 1,000 councillors net and 48 councils, Slough was the only Council Labour lost control of (for specific local reasons) amongst many gains, the Lib Dems gained 400 councillors and a dozen Councils, and the Greens doubled their councillors compared with 2019.

numbertwelve said:

Donkeys said:

numbertwelve said:

nico679 said:

Of course you should be able to walk wherever you like. But you should also use common sense.

The police should have dealt with the matter more sensitively but the individual involved should also bear in mind that the police priority is to maintain order .

Just as a point of order - Would we use the “use common sense” argument if we were talking about the way a woman “should” dress to avoid attracting unwelcome attention? That is an argument that has been widely accepted to be misogynistic - on the grounds that it’s blaming the victim rather than the perpetrator. What is the difference here?

That's not a point of order. It's a bullshit false analogy.

I disagree. It is a position of either someone deserves criticism for the way they present themselves in case it causes “trouble” for them, or instead we (rightly IMHO) blame the perpetrator of any violence or crime that arises from that.

I dont have a problem with the police telling the individual in question to be careful, or warning them that tensions are running high and that they need to look after themself because they are worried for their safety, and perhaps they would be best having a colleague escort them away from the area. That is the common sense approach. Where they got it wrong was giving the impression that the person’s very presence there was in some way wrong.

Well put. There was a line there in terms of trying to keep things calm, advising someone of their concerns, and leaping to the use of potential arrest because someone's protected characteristic was too inflammatory for the streets of London in that area. The Met officer leapt way over that line, and the organisation in its signature tone deaf defensive way, endorsed that approach whilst trying to pretend it did not.

Stuartinromford said:

MattW said:

Thank-you for the header.

Can you update me on what Fareham is like?

I think (and I may be getting it muddled with Wareham) it was the back-of-beyond place where I went to a friend's baptism-by-immersion one summer whilst on placement from University. Remarkable experience in a traditional *very* hands-down gospel hall (roughly old-style Keswick Tradition for those who know such distinctions). It was like a 1950s church hall where your grandma would attend beetle drives, and when the chairs were moved there were a couple of trapdoors with a baptism pool underneath. I stayed with a lovely couple who had 3 year old triplets, who they transported around in a beat-up 15 year old Volvo Estate.

I recall it was a hell of a long way from Nottingham (never mind Bradford) in a Mk1 VW Polo, and felt isolated like a filming location for The Wicker Man, had it been set in England. Were chip shops and pubs frowned upon?

When was this?

Growing up nearby in the 1980s, there were bits of Fareham like that- surprisingly remote for somewhere midway between Portsmouth and Southampton, places where they grew strawberries and didn't like strangers.

A lot of those bits got executive homes built on them in the mid-to-late 80s. The sort of thing that Ken Masters from Howard's Way would have called aspirational.

Though it sounds a bit more like Wareham- once you get beyond Bournemouth, coastal Dorset really is remote.

It was late 1980s.

I've looked it up, and it was Wareham. Here is the location of the gospel hall:

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.6871235,-2.1131829,3a,75y,293.16h,74.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sY9a8prRWaTsrDPa96ugMlA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

I think I prefer this to all the famous Impressionists. I must be a terrible philistine

The Reception at Versailles with Louis XIV by Jean Lean Gérôme



Look at the details. The red heels of the Sun King



The pompous faces of his aristocrats



I’ve barely heard of “Gérôme”. French academic artist. Follower of David. Yet apparently one of the most famous artists in the world in 1880. Cuh. Who knew

He’s barely known now because everyone raves about the pathetic Degas and his plebby washerwomen

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

.

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

One for some of you on here - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stop-pretending-prostitution-work-spectator-988rbjhnl

Hah. Paywalled. Can’t read it. Pff!

I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.

She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.

Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.

As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"

Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.

It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.

I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.

On the Yorkshire Ripper's victims - see here -
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/14/one-womans-perspective/, for instance.

Or the various articles on the attitude to girls who were the victims in gang grooming scandals.

Isn't the problem precisely that while prostitution is not illegal, advertising, solicitation, brothels etc are illegal so it ends up in the hands of criminals?

And anything in the hands of criminals isn't going to be safe.

If you want it to be safe, then it needs to be completely legal. Every step of the way. Eliminate pimps and criminals from the mix, instead have a sex workers union etc standing up for their rights.

Countries whereby it is completely legalised seem to have far lower levels of abuse than those whereby it's either quasi or fully illegal.

Prohibition does not work.

Do you think Hamas should be prohibited?

Interesting question, I see what you did there.

Hamas are a terrorism group. Terrorism is illegal. Therefore it makes sense for them to be prohibited.

Of course the prohibition of terrorism doesn't eliminate all terrorism but I'm not so liberal that I advocate the legalisation of murder.

I do believe that currently illicit drugs, non-illicit but harmful drugs like tobacco, sex trade etc while all a bad idea should be legal but discouraged.

Murder should remain illegal, yes.

Thanks for the answer. So, prohibition does work in some situations and doesn’t in others. We need to dig into the specifics of what is being prohibited.

Prohibition doesn't really work in any circumstances.

Has murder been eliminated due to prohibition? Has rape? Has terrorism?

However those are so evil and so harmful to others they should remain prohibited.

Those activites where harm is to the participant in the activity rather than third parties, then education combined with regulation, is better than prohibition.

Purge: Election Year!

As I predicted, Sunak has said something in response to the pro-Israeli group the Campaign Against Antisemitism's expressions of concern about policing in London. But rather than either Sunak or Cleverly responding directly to the CAA call for Rowley to resign or be sacked, Sunak appears to have sent out Coutinho (who is in charge of the energy department!) to declare that the issue of who is head of the Met is a matter for...you guessed it...Sadiq Khan.

That's funny, because I thought it was the Home Secretary's business too.

I'll tell you what remains a matter for the Met themselves, though - the holding of a big march in London without giving them six days' notice of the route. And the CAA say they're having a march in London on the same day as the next big pro-Palestinian one, which is next Saturday, 27 April. And...they say they'll announce the gathering place and route the day before. The question therefore arises: will they give this information to the Met TODAY (let's remind ourselves at this point that this is Britain, and they are supposed to obey British law), or do they want to break the law and goad the Met into nicking them? I wouldn't put such thoughts past the pro-genocidalist nasties.

So it seems both Home Secretary Cleverly and London Mayor Khan have confidence in Met commissioner Rowley at the moment.

That won't last.
It probably won't last even until the end of tomorrow.
Something will break.

kle4 said:

Trump's lawyers have filed, for about the 10th time, to delay his criminal trial in NY, claiming he cannot get a fair jury even though his lawyers just participated fully in the usual selection process for a jury.

It's amazing how many tactics are available to rich people to disrupt legal processes.

I think he truly thought he would be able to delay all his criminal trials beyond the election and even though this one is his best prospect of success (be it acquittal or hung jury), he did not mentally prepare for actually facing it.

I can only guess that has been done as the basis for some sort of appeal, if required, in due course. There is no chance of it being granted. Tuesday, where the Judge has to determine what to do about the repeated breaching of the gag order, is going to be interesting. I suspect inconsequential fines but a clear warning that if this is repeated being remanded in custody is a real possibility.

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

This one is called “A Portrait of @Cyclefree Contemplating the Sex Lives of Several PB-ers”

Oh I am glad to have you thinking about me - and in Paris - a city where I have enjoyed many romantic sexually adventurous trysts involving .... (For God's sake, stop it! Ed)

A picture of one of my ancestors - buried in the Pere-Lachaise cemetery. I look like this - and yes, my hair, was that dark but the fierce eyes I still have, though they are sparkling with amusement right now.

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

Trump's lawyers have filed, for about the 10th time, to delay his criminal trial in NY, claiming he cannot get a fair jury even though his lawyers just participated fully in the usual selection process for a jury.

It's amazing how many tactics are available to rich people to disrupt legal processes.

I think he truly thought he would be able to delay all his criminal trials beyond the election and even though this one is his best prospect of success (be it acquittal or hung jury), he did not mentally prepare for actually facing it.

I can only guess that has been done as the basis for some sort of appeal, if required, in due course. There is no chance of it being granted. Tuesday, where the Judge has to determine what to do about the repeated breaching of the gag order, is going to be interesting. I suspect inconsequential fines but a clear warning that if this is repeated being remanded in custody is a real possibility.

He needs to indicate it as more than a possibility if it it is to be effective, and not lead to the court being made a fool of by Trump. We've already seen how Trump will go after family if it is not set out expressly, how he will post links and claim that is not him being in breach which is a ridiculous argument, any wiggle room and he will do something again, and the court will look stupid when, once again, they give him a finger wagging.

If he says this time it is a fine but next time it will be jail, then in that circumstance only Trump probably will dial it back - he has Fox News and others to make the attacks instead anyway.

Just how like after the second Carrol trial the award of 80+m in damages was sufficient for him to not repeat the allegations, explicitly naming Carrol, immediately afterwards, whereas the 5+m in the first did not.

ETA: Also, I doubt it has been done as the basis for some kind of appeal, since there's already like a dozen examples of motions to stay the proceedings, including for the same reasons cited in the latest one, which have been dealt with which could be used for that purpose. So it must be done because of just how desperate he is to get a delay, not because he's building issues for that appeal (if he ends up needing one).

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

This one is called “A Portrait of @Cyclefree Contemplating the Sex Lives of Several PB-ers”

Oh I am glad to have you thinking about me - and in Paris - a city where I have enjoyed many romantic sexually adventurous trysts involving .... (For God's sake, stop it! Ed)

Surely not our editor ?

I assumed her husband was called Edward.

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

viewcode said:

• YouTube: "Why Growth Is Stupid", Garys Economics, Apr 21, 2024
  
• Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMXWUeH5Y48
  
• AHRefs summary: He argues that the fundamental problem in the British and global economy is not a lack of productivity or economic growth, but rather a growing inequality in wealth distribution. He disagrees with the common narrative that low productivity is the root cause of falling living standards and points out that living standards are declining worldwide, not just in the UK. He highlights the disconnect between the rapid increase in wealth among the richest individuals and the stagnation or decline in living standards for ordinary people. He then goes on to criticize economists and politicians, who often come from wealthy backgrounds, for attributing economic woes to productivity issues without addressing the underlying problem of inequality. He finishes by emphasizing the need to address the growing wealth gap and calls for a shift in focus from economic growth to tackling inequality as a solution to improving living standards for all.
  

(summarizer available from https://ahrefs.com/writing-tools/summarizer)

The NYT article by Sam Knight that he refers to might be this: https://archive.is/Y0gLg or https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/04/01/what-have-fourteen-years-of-conservative-rule-done-to-britain

They are part and parcel of the same thing. A rapidly growing economy is a socially mobile economy. It will become more equal, as we saw in Victorian Britain. Stopping the engine so we can ponder why billionaires have so many billions and how we might take a bit off them (clue: we can't) will exacerbate the situation. As I have said before, I watched an interview with an investment fund manager who demanded that the management of BP did less exploration. They liked the high profits that came from energy being scarse people paying through the nose.

That's a good and persuasive answer, but I'm not sure it reflects reality. In order to have a Government we have to tax *something* and the "don't tax the rich" approach of the last X decades hasn't worked: we're up to our knees in debt, we have a continually expanding government that doesn't achieve its goals and our lives get worse. Your example of a rapidly growing economy may have worked in the past (for a given definition of "worked"), but I'm not sure it's happening now. People are imported to force working-class wages down, and the profits are exported outside the UK. Growth won't fix that, it'll make it worse.

In terms of the personal fortunes of the mobile rich (I mean the very rich) we must recognise that their money is not touchable by punitive taxation by the nation state. We might not like that fact but it's true. I would prefer to persuade such people to put down roots in the UK and enter the landed gentry, a responsible class of people with employees and social responsibilities.

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

viewcode said:

• YouTube: "Why Growth Is Stupid", Garys Economics, Apr 21, 2024
  
• Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMXWUeH5Y48
  
• AHRefs summary: He argues that the fundamental problem in the British and global economy is not a lack of productivity or economic growth, but rather a growing inequality in wealth distribution. He disagrees with the common narrative that low productivity is the root cause of falling living standards and points out that living standards are declining worldwide, not just in the UK. He highlights the disconnect between the rapid increase in wealth among the richest individuals and the stagnation or decline in living standards for ordinary people. He then goes on to criticize economists and politicians, who often come from wealthy backgrounds, for attributing economic woes to productivity issues without addressing the underlying problem of inequality. He finishes by emphasizing the need to address the growing wealth gap and calls for a shift in focus from economic growth to tackling inequality as a solution to improving living standards for all.
  

(summarizer available from https://ahrefs.com/writing-tools/summarizer)

The NYT article by Sam Knight that he refers to might be this: https://archive.is/Y0gLg or https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/04/01/what-have-fourteen-years-of-conservative-rule-done-to-britain

They are part and parcel of the same thing. A rapidly growing economy is a socially mobile economy. It will become more equal, as we saw in Victorian Britain. Stopping the engine so we can ponder why billionaires have so many billions and how we might take a bit off them (clue: we can't) will exacerbate the situation. As I have said before, I watched an interview with an investment fund manager who demanded that the management of BP did less exploration. They liked the high profits that came from energy being scarse people paying through the nose.

That's a good and persuasive answer, but I'm not sure it reflects reality. In order to have a Government we have to tax *something* and the "don't tax the rich" approach of the last X decades hasn't worked: we're up to our knees in debt, we have a continually expanding government that doesn't achieve its goals and our lives get worse. Your example of a rapidly growing economy may have worked in the past (for a given definition of "worked"), but I'm not sure it's happening now. People are imported to force working-class wages down, and the profits are exported outside the UK. Growth won't fix that, it'll make it worse.

In terms of the personal fortunes of the mobile rich (I mean the very rich) we must recognise that their money is not touchable by punitive taxation by the nation state. We might not like that fact but it's true. I would prefer to persuade such people to put down roots in the UK and enter the landed gentry, a responsible class of people with employees and social responsibilities.

Taxing mobile assets is not a good idea as they're just moved.

Taxing immobile ones works.

The one immobile asset we deeply undertax is land.

We should tax income less, and land more.

Cyclefree said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

This one is called “A Portrait of @Cyclefree Contemplating the Sex Lives of Several PB-ers”

Oh I am glad to have you thinking about me - and in Paris - a city where I have enjoyed many romantic sexually adventurous trysts involving .... (For God's sake, stop it! Ed)

A picture of one of my ancestors - buried in the Pere-Lachaise cemetery. I look like this - and yes, my hair, was that dark but the fierce eyes I still have, though they are sparkling with amusement right now.

The artist must really have pissed her off, she is not impressed one bit!

kle4 said:

LostPassword said:

boulay said:

kinabalu said:

boulay said:

Quite a useful quick guide to potential runners and riders for Trump’s VP pick.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/21/trump-vp-pick-shortlist

Jeez what a shower.

Yup, quite worrying that if he got elected and then keeled over his replacement could actually be worse. MTG - Christ can you imagine her suddenly becoming leader of the free world.

Initially, yes, that seems terrifying, but actually I think she would struggle to hold together as much support as Trump does, and so would become so deeply unpopular that she wouldn't have the command of Congressional Republicans that Trump has.

The post-Trump leader I really fear is the one that can combine Trump's base with an ability to reach out to what passes for centrists in the US.

Does such a person exist? The hard core of the Republican base adores Trump, it is no small section of the party, and they can accept things from him they do not appear willing to accept from others.

Trump Jr couldn't really appeal in the same way, he's a pale imitation of his dad, and certainly not to what counts for centrists, and anyone more old school GOP that would seems to put them off entirely.

Maybe I'm scared of the monster under the bed who doesn't exist, but sometimes such a monster is real. Certainly Trump's continued existence makes it harder for such a figure to emerge, but once Trump is gone, the opportunity will be there. But not for Marjorie Taylor Green.

DavidL said:

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

This one is called “A Portrait of @Cyclefree Contemplating the Sex Lives of Several PB-ers”

Oh I am glad to have you thinking about me - and in Paris - a city where I have enjoyed many romantic sexually adventurous trysts involving .... (For God's sake, stop it! Ed)

Surely not our editor ?

I assumed her husband was called Edward.

And that the trysts were with my husband .....

Cyclefree said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

This one is called “A Portrait of @Cyclefree Contemplating the Sex Lives of Several PB-ers”

Oh I am glad to have you thinking about me - and in Paris - a city where I have enjoyed many romantic sexually adventurous trysts involving .... (For God's sake, stop it! Ed)

A picture of one of my ancestors - buried in the Pere-Lachaise cemetery. I look like this - and yes, my hair, was that dark but the fierce eyes I still have, though they are sparkling with amusement right now.

She’s brilliant. A noble lineage

Like a kind of better looking Virginia Woolf

Cyclefree said:

Cyclefree said:

Leon said:

This one is called “A Portrait of @Cyclefree Contemplating the Sex Lives of Several PB-ers”

Oh I am glad to have you thinking about me - and in Paris - a city where I have enjoyed many romantic sexually adventurous trysts involving .... (For God's sake, stop it! Ed)

A picture of one of my ancestors - buried in the Pere-Lachaise cemetery. I look like this - and yes, my hair, was that dark but the fierce eyes I still have, though they are sparkling with amusement right now.

I must confess that’s my mental image of you!

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

boulay said:

Quite a useful quick guide to potential runners and riders for Trump’s VP pick.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/21/trump-vp-pick-shortlist

I know the VP race is always a bit crazy and weird things can happen, but some of these are a bit outlandish.

MTG is a 100-1 shot with the bookies, and is as crazy as Trump but, crucially, not in the same way. Her position on Mike Johnson is difficult for Trump who does need some election year stability from the House.

Greg Abbot is likewise a pretty long odds outsider snf it isn't very clear why he'd give up the governorship of a major state for the chance to be the next Mike Pence (I know the obvious answer is he might get the top job, but probably only literally over Trump's dead body). Similarly Ron DeSantis, with the added problem that Trump doesn't trust him one bit (and rightly so).

Tulsi Gabbard and Nikki Haley are at least both well up in the betting, although I can't see much of a case for either. The former isn't up to it, and the latter is very clearly mistrusted at Mar-a-Lago.

The more fundamental question is whether Trump goes for someone who has drunk the Kool Aid and is slavishly loyal (e.g. Kari Lake), or someone who talks the talk for career reasons but is ultimately a fairly conventional pick designed to reach out beyond the base (e.g. Tim Scott). The big argument against the latter type, for Trump, is he did that with Mike Pence (who brought in the Christian right, which is less of a problem for Trump now but was in 2016). And yet Trump probably does ultimately know that he needs to reach out beyond the hardcore fans.

I'm hoping he stays true to himself rather than doing what might attract swing voters. Eg as he did with pandemic. Handling that in a normal, non-comedy way would have got him reelected in 2020.

NEW THREAD

TheScreamingEagles said:

NEW THREAD

Indeed. it's really good.

“Vincent Van Gogh”. Dutchman. Also good. There’s a lot of young talent here

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

bondegezou said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

Cyclefree said:

Nigelb said:

.

Leon said:

Cyclefree said:

One for some of you on here - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stop-pretending-prostitution-work-spectator-988rbjhnl

Hah. Paywalled. Can’t read it. Pff!

I'm delighted to say the same is true of the Speccie article it likely references.

She reveals some aspects of the article which were not mentioned when it was extensively discussed on here.

Other than not really acknowledging that prostitution isn't currently illegal, she's quite right.

As with most choices in life, the question to be asked is not "Is this legal?" But "Is it wise?"

Most women do not have the choice between hotshot City lawyering and part-time sex work to make ends meet. Sure, some are trafficked and others controlled by violent pimps but most aren't. Prostitution can be perfectly rational. As we now rely on ITV dramas to cover real events, look at the dismissal of Yorkshire Ripper victims because they were not "respectable" women. Feminism is for all, not just posh women concerned with glass ceilings and Hollywood.

It is precisely because feminism is for all that I don't buy the frankly revolting "ho ho it's all a bit of fun, men's libido, what can you do" bollocks there is around this topic, and as regularly exhibited on here. Sex work is an appalling euphemism which disguises the reality.

I will remind you that I have repeatedly raised on here in headers the way women, whatever they are or do, are dismissed when their interests or voices clash with the demands of men.

On the Yorkshire Ripper's victims - see here -
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/03/14/one-womans-perspective/, for instance.

Or the various articles on the attitude to girls who were the victims in gang grooming scandals.

Isn't the problem precisely that while prostitution is not illegal, advertising, solicitation, brothels etc are illegal so it ends up in the hands of criminals?

And anything in the hands of criminals isn't going to be safe.

If you want it to be safe, then it needs to be completely legal. Every step of the way. Eliminate pimps and criminals from the mix, instead have a sex workers union etc standing up for their rights.

Countries whereby it is completely legalised seem to have far lower levels of abuse than those whereby it's either quasi or fully illegal.

Prohibition does not work.

Do you think Hamas should be prohibited?

Interesting question, I see what you did there.

Hamas are a terrorism group. Terrorism is illegal. Therefore it makes sense for them to be prohibited.

Of course the prohibition of terrorism doesn't eliminate all terrorism but I'm not so liberal that I advocate the legalisation of murder.

I do believe that currently illicit drugs, non-illicit but harmful drugs like tobacco, sex trade etc while all a bad idea should be legal but discouraged.

Murder should remain illegal, yes.

Thanks for the answer. So, prohibition does work in some situations and doesn’t in others. We need to dig into the specifics of what is being prohibited.

Prohibition doesn't really work in any circumstances.

Has murder been eliminated due to prohibition? Has rape? Has terrorism?

However those are so evil and so harmful to others they should remain prohibited.

Those activites where harm is to the participant in the activity rather than third parties, then education combined with regulation, is better than prohibition.

Prohibition has decreased murder, rape and terrorism. Decreasing something means it’s working. The idea that something isn’t working unless it is 100% perfect is a bit strange.

Prohibition almost always results in a reduction in the incidence of the thing you're trying to prohbit.

The issue is whether the costs outweigh the benefits. Prohibition of alcohol, in the US, certainly reduced alcohol-related deaths. But, it gave a huge boost to organised crime.

...

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

viewcode said:

viewcode said:

• YouTube: "Why Growth Is Stupid", Garys Economics, Apr 21, 2024
  
• Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMXWUeH5Y48
  
• AHRefs summary: He argues that the fundamental problem in the British and global economy is not a lack of productivity or economic growth, but rather a growing inequality in wealth distribution. He disagrees with the common narrative that low productivity is the root cause of falling living standards and points out that living standards are declining worldwide, not just in the UK. He highlights the disconnect between the rapid increase in wealth among the richest individuals and the stagnation or decline in living standards for ordinary people. He then goes on to criticize economists and politicians, who often come from wealthy backgrounds, for attributing economic woes to productivity issues without addressing the underlying problem of inequality. He finishes by emphasizing the need to address the growing wealth gap and calls for a shift in focus from economic growth to tackling inequality as a solution to improving living standards for all.
  

(summarizer available from https://ahrefs.com/writing-tools/summarizer)

The NYT article by Sam Knight that he refers to might be this: https://archive.is/Y0gLg or https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/04/01/what-have-fourteen-years-of-conservative-rule-done-to-britain

They are part and parcel of the same thing. A rapidly growing economy is a socially mobile economy. It will become more equal, as we saw in Victorian Britain. Stopping the engine so we can ponder why billionaires have so many billions and how we might take a bit off them (clue: we can't) will exacerbate the situation. As I have said before, I watched an interview with an investment fund manager who demanded that the management of BP did less exploration. They liked the high profits that came from energy being scarse people paying through the nose.

That's a good and persuasive answer, but I'm not sure it reflects reality. In order to have a Government we have to tax *something* and the "don't tax the rich" approach of the last X decades hasn't worked: we're up to our knees in debt, we have a continually expanding government that doesn't achieve its goals and our lives get worse. Your example of a rapidly growing economy may have worked in the past (for a given definition of "worked"), but I'm not sure it's happening now. People are imported to force working-class wages down, and the profits are exported outside the UK. Growth won't fix that, it'll make it worse.

In terms of the personal fortunes of the mobile rich (I mean the very rich) we must recognise that their money is not touchable by punitive taxation by the nation state. We might not like that fact but it's true. I would prefer to persuade such people to put down roots in the UK and enter the landed gentry, a responsible class of people with employees and social responsibilities.

Gary (yes he's really called Gary) has an answer to this: you tax the physical wealth (buildings, etc). You can't put a football stadium in your pocket. Also it is possible to take money from the citizens of nowhere, as the Russian sanctions demonstrated: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-sanctions-abramovich-and-usmanovs-financial-fixers-in-crackdown-on-oligarch-enablers

Of course you can tax physical wealth and buildings, and then such people can decide to have their buildings elsewhere.

I didn't approve of the actions taken against Russian oligarchs - I don't see how it helps Putin if Russians take their wealth away from Russia and put it in London - if anything forcing them back to Russia helps him. The movement against 'dodgy Russian money' that's so popular in certain quarters seems straightforwardly based on America applying pressure because it doesn't like London beating New York.