Howdy, Stranger!

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

There’s a market on a potential Runcorn & Helsby by-election – politicalbetting.com

245

Comments

  • FossFoss Posts: 1,301
    edited January 21
    Leon said:

    What is he trying to do with this speech??!
    Save his job.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,422
    Leon said:

    What is he trying to do with this speech??!
    Have it both ways. He's saying that he didn't want to risk the trial collapsing, but, as I said at the time, why were the terrorist charges announced before the trial? Surely they should have been kept quiet as the police and CPS don't think the murders were terrorism.

    He can see which way the wind is blowing and is wanting to be seen to view it as a terrorist attack.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    edited January 21
    Ah. I get it. Starmer is in trouble
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,921
    algarkirk said:

    The current fad for this sort of thing is going to be quite short lived as in principle it is endless and in practice is impossible.
    Two things really, and I hope you are right, firstly govts like ours have quite a few people whose backgrounds are in organisations like Oxfam and they will try to influence policy.

    Secondly this is more bargaining, stating a position to try to lever something. Same with the so-called climate reparations. They demanded 1 Trillion a year off nations at the last COP and ended up with $325 Billion and moaned about that not being enough.

    It is all one big grift.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,288
    algarkirk said:

    Your last point is central to everything. There is no sense in which this project is about one charismatic individual. It's about Trumpism (or whatever it shall come to be called), and it has a large body of powerful supporters, influencers and organisers. Some will believe it, some will follow the money, and certainly they will fight with each other.

    I wonder (speculating) whether a sort of parallel phenomenon is Great Britain - politics, influence, assumptions - from approximately the great reform act of 1832 to 1914.
    I don't know it lasted that long as a single movement, but certainly there was a marked shift towards social conservatism around 1830ish.
  • Firstly, that assumes it was certainly a lab leak - and one from an engineered virus. I know you've 100% convinced that's the truth, but for anyone sane there's more than a little doubt there.

    Secondly, you ignore what he's saying: that the benefits of such research outweighed the risks. That may have been a wise call at the time, and (whispers quietly) may even be a correct call now, with care. It is about balancing risks. And your argument is used by anti-vaxxers to stop vaccine development.

    You are a dangerous fool on this matter. We should tighten up restrictions on labs *and* stop anything like wet markets. Your onanistic belief that you are right will lead to disaster in the future.
    According to a New Scientist article on the topic a few weeks ago, general scientific opinion remains that the cause of Covid-19 is very unlikely to have been a lab leak, but not impossible.

    If you have a subscription:

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26435242-500-the-big-unanswered-questions-about-the-covid-19-coronavirus/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    Foss said:

    Save his job.
    Yes. I get it now
  • CJohnCJohn Posts: 75

    Trump's given him what he wants - the green light for Mars. Musk should go away and get on with that project.
    I agree with that; the role of court jester doesn't suit him; it's beneath him.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 9,364

    Can you give some specific examples of WHO’s errors? I’m not saying the organisation is perfect, just wondering what in particular concerns you.
    Taiwan
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,322
    CJohn said:

    The Greens and LDs won't waste resources at Runcorn.

    The Tories need to throw everything at it.

    So my feeling is it's not a slam dunk for Reform; Labour doesn't need to defend its left wing; but Reform need to fight it out with the Tories.

    10/11 are unattractive odds on Reform.

    Agree that the Greens and LDs won't waste resources and both those odds are far too short. I would put them both at 100/1. Often in these scenarios the Greens will beat the LDs for 4th place.

    I think Reform are slightly stronger favourites than shown.

    I think the Tories will come a bad third, but I am not so confident about that. I think they will come third, but whether very badly or not I am not so confident.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,288
    Leon said:

    What is he trying to do with this speech??!
    Explain why, pre-trial, government was not very forthcoming ... and shift some blame back on the Tories for not preventing it ?
    (See the three referrals to Prevent.)

    And then long grass it with an enquiry.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,888
    On the "was-Southport-terrorism" question:

    If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?

    What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 1,957
    Nigelb said:

    One thing Trump's executive orders do U.S. surrender a huge amount of influence to an authoritarian dictatorship.

    ..During the regular daily foreign ministry briefing, spokesperson Guo Jiakun said China is concerned at Trump’s announcement the US is again withdrawing from the Paris climate deal. Reuters quotes the official saying China is actively responding to climate change and will jointly promote global green and low-carbon transition.

    The spokesperson also said that the World Health Organization should only be strengthened, not weakened. He said China would continue to support it in fulfilling its responsibilities. ..

    So China are now the good guys and the USA are the villain of the piece.....
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,294

    On the "was-Southport-terrorism" question:

    If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?

    What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?

    The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,422

    On the "was-Southport-terrorism" question:

    If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?

    What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?

    I think Dunblane was terrorism. Hungerford, Cumbria and Plymouth, probably not.

    The police and, later, CPS have got this badly wrong. The police should have disclosed enough information (i.e. "we think he wanted to do this to his school a week earlier and was stopped") to make it clear they didn't think he was specifically targeting girls. And the CPS should not have charged him with terrorist offences until after the murder and attempted murder cases were tried.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    Nigelb said:

    Explain why, pre-trial, government was not very forthcoming ... and shift some blame back on the Tories for not preventing it ?
    (See the three referrals to Prevent.)

    And then long grass it with an enquiry.
    It’s more than that. Other PB-ers are correct. This is a clear and present danger to his job. Did he lie about this, to the public? At least by omission or misdirection? He looks extremely shifty under questioning and gives weak answers

  • FossFoss Posts: 1,301
    Cicero said:

    The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.

    David Copeland was a lone wolf. And he was a terrorist.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 564
    CJohn said:

    I agree with that; the role of court jester doesn't suit him; it's beneath him.
    Thought the job of the court jester was a sort of living memento mori. Definitely not a jester then.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,288

    Taiwan
    Absolutely; that was disgraceful.
    Ironically, Taiwan's COVID response was probably the best in the world.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 54,773
    Cicero said:

    The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.

    The Terrorism Act 2000 has a much wider definition:

    In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

    (a)the action falls within subsection (2),

    (b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

    (c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

    (2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

    (a)involves serious violence against a person,

    (b)involves serious damage to property,

    (c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

    (d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

    (e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

    (3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
  • Taz said:

    Two things really, and I hope you are right, firstly govts like ours have quite a few people whose backgrounds are in organisations like Oxfam and they will try to influence policy.

    Secondly this is more bargaining, stating a position to try to lever something. Same with the so-called climate reparations. They demanded 1 Trillion a year off nations at the last COP and ended up with $325 Billion and moaned about that not being enough.

    It is all one big grift.
    I doubt that there's much point in trying to mitigate climate change now. The world simply doesn't have the political will to it. Trump and Putin clearly couldn't give a fuck. China and Europe are making progress, but too slowly and I doubt they'll keep going when the other big emitters do nothing. Without sufficient funding from richer countries, poorer countries won't industialise cleanly.

    The best we can do as a nation is to start preparing for the gradual loss of our low-lying areas to the sea.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,288
    edited January 21
    ClippP said:

    So China are now the good guys and the USA are the villain of the piece.....
    That's how China will present it, certainly.
    And Trump has greatly strengthened their propaganda.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,888
    Cicero said:

    The actions of a lone wolf are not terrorism, however terrifying they may be. Terrorism requires a conspiracy of multiple actors using illegal and violent means in the pursuit of damaging the established political order, whether at home or abroad.
    The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    This speech and presser has, I suspect, made everything a whole lot worse for Starmer. He’s just really shit at politics and is very bad at handling questions - he either looks angry or evasive

    It’s the prosecutor in him. He’s used to asking the questions

    Tut
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,294
    Leon said:

    I rather admire Musk in many ways - despite his serious character flaws, I believe his titanic achievements far outweigh the bad stuff

    However I’m not going to defend him on this. The first salute might have been some weird star trek geek thing but he’s very smart and you can see on his face he kinda realises what he’s doing and the second was therefore deliberate. To enrage lefties, probably
    Yeah, although to call his achievements "titanic" rather overlooks the manifestly unethical behaviour he seems to have used in order to take control of these assets from the real founders.

    "Behind every great fortune, there lies a great crime".
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,288
    edited January 21
    Leon said:

    It’s more than that. Other PB-ers are correct. This is a clear and present danger to his job. Did he lie about this, to the public? At least by omission or misdirection? He looks extremely shifty under questioning and gives weak answers

    He's probably found enough wiggle room.
    It won't convince his political opponents, but the Tories have some awkward questions of their own.
    The Fukkers will make hay.

    .."It’s not what we would have usually thought of as terrorism when definitions were drawn up, when guidelines were put in place, when the framework was put in place.
    And we have to recognize that here today, because I think most people would say, looking at the facts of this case, it’s clearly extreme violence, it’s clearly intended to terrorise and I completely accept and understand that, and that is my view.
    Therefore, we have to make sure that the law and the framework for responding is appropriate to the new threat that we face. And we will make whatever changes are necessary in the law to deal with it."

    This is somewhat similar to the point being made by Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent review of terrorist legislation, on the Today programme this morning...
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,504

    Look, some of those younger men might have bone spurs.
    I think, from previous evidence, that Trump sees “regional wars” as bad things. Somalia, Iraq 2, Afghanistan.

    He wants to sell “I am not a neo-con”.

    For Ukraine, he wants to act as peacemaker.

    - he has an aversion to US peacekeepers
    - He likes the idea of he Europeans paying for whatever happens

    So I could see a pitch of ceasefire in place, European peacekeepers, Ukraine not joint NATO or EU.

    The last is because Ukraine joining either is probably existential to Putin - window time for him.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,288

    On the "was-Southport-terrorism" question:

    If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?

    What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?

    The point is that there is no very clear definition; it's always been a contested question.
    The only objective test is the legal definition - which of course varies between countries, and over time - and which in this case doesn't add much clarity either.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    Starmer is in trouble because this looks like a cover up of the cover up. There are way too many inconsistencies in what he’s claiming he did and wanted, and what actually happened - from the murder onwards
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,935

    I doubt that there's much point in trying to mitigate climate change now. The world simply doesn't have the political will to it. Trump and Putin clearly couldn't give a fuck. China and Europe are making progress, but too slowly and I doubt they'll keep going when the other big emitters do nothing. Without sufficient funding from richer countries, poorer countries won't industialise cleanly.

    The best we can do as a nation is to start preparing for the gradual loss of our low-lying areas to the sea.
    Well at least that will reduce the Reform vote too.....
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,471

    I think, from previous evidence, that Trump sees “regional wars” as bad things. Somalia, Iraq 2, Afghanistan.

    He wants to sell “I am not a neo-con”.

    For Ukraine, he wants to act as peacemaker.

    - he has an aversion to US peacekeepers
    - He likes the idea of he Europeans paying for whatever happens

    So I could see a pitch of ceasefire in place, European peacekeepers, Ukraine not joint NATO or EU.

    The last is because Ukraine joining either is probably existential to Putin - window time for him.
    Long term, not joining NATO is almost certainly existential to Ukraine.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,986
    Something for the classical historians.

    https://x.com/pacificjimmy/status/1881436921676849296
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,507

    I doubt that there's much point in trying to mitigate climate change now. The world simply doesn't have the political will to it. Trump and Putin clearly couldn't give a fuck. China and Europe are making progress, but too slowly and I doubt they'll keep going when the other big emitters do nothing. Without sufficient funding from richer countries, poorer countries won't industialise cleanly.

    The best we can do as a nation is to start preparing for the gradual loss of our low-lying areas to the sea.
    On the positive side: the cost of solar power continues to drop like a rock - it’s following a silicon chip-like technology curve.

    There’s going to be some thrashing about over the next decade, but the international electrical supply is going to largely decarbonise whatever the pro-fossil fuel lobby tries. The economics make that inevitable.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,216

    Sort of on topic, am I the only PBer to have been for a pint in Helsby?

    I've been to the rail station, after getting the very rare train from Ellesmere Port.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,507
    CJohn said:

    I agree with that; the role of court jester doesn't suit him; it's beneath him.
    He’s a narcissist who craves the attention. Being the richest man in the world & running two of the most successful engineering companies ever isn’t enough for him - because nothing will ever be enough.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,216
    edited January 21
    Leon said:

    I rather admire Musk in many ways - despite his serious character flaws, I believe his titanic achievements far outweigh the bad stuff
    Titanic, thought to be "unsinkable", sank on her maiden voyage...

  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,471

    The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
    Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.

    Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.

    "Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,355
    Nigelb said:

    He's probably found enough wiggle room.
    It won't convince his political opponents, but the Tories have some awkward questions of their own.
    The Fukkers will make hay.

    .."It’s not what we would have usually thought of as terrorism when definitions were drawn up, when guidelines were put in place, when the framework was put in place.
    And we have to recognize that here today, because I think most people would say, looking at the facts of this case, it’s clearly extreme violence, it’s clearly intended to terrorise and I completely accept and understand that, and that is my view.
    Therefore, we have to make sure that the law and the framework for responding is appropriate to the new threat that we face. And we will make whatever changes are necessary in the law to deal with it."

    This is somewhat similar to the point being made by Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent review of terrorist legislation, on the Today programme this morning...
    I was musing on this topic as I drove to work this morning. I think some/a lot of the anger around Southport (beyond just the senselessness and horror) is the rush to say that 'its not terrorism', when later there are clear links to terrorism. The danger is that we are at the angels dancing on the head of a pin. Clearly the legal professions stick to the idea that the motivation must be present for such an act to be terrorism and so if there is no clear evidence of motivation then ergo its not terrorism. But to the lay person an attack such as this, targeting young girls doing things that in certain strongly religious societies (e.g. Afghanistan) are banned, you can see why the question is asked.

    JJ raises an interesting point with comparisons to other cases, notably cases of white British males going on the rampage. Did people rush to judgement about the Southport killer because of the target? If it had been an attack at his school (in good 'ol American style) would terrorism have been invoked? I think probably less likely.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,786
    DavidL said:

    The Terrorism Act 2000 has a much wider definition:

    In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

    (a)the action falls within subsection (2),

    (b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

    (c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

    (2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

    (a)involves serious violence against a person,

    (b)involves serious damage to property,

    (c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

    (d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

    (e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

    (3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
    That begs the question - why on earth were the far-right rioters from last year not charged as terrorists? Seems to fit perfectly.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,422
    https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1881634063351476234

    Charlie Bentley-Astor
    @astor_charlie
    Misinformation, ay? Come and get me then, big boy.

    Nothing I have published or tweeted ahead of the trial has proved to be false. I honoured the contempt of court, which is why you didn't come to get me.

    I knew about failed attack on his old school back in September. I kept my mouth shut for the sake of your precious trial. I wish I hadn't. You needed to be exposed.

    Citizen journalists and counter-cultural commentators - shunnded media outlets like GBN - are a thorn in the Establishment's side but I for one am not going away!

    The UK contempt of court laws are not fit for purpose.


    Yeah, really not sure why that information couldn't have been disclosed. It would have made a big difference to how the attack was viewed.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,504
    Leon said:

    What is he trying to do with this speech??!
    Like the immigration crack down, he’s trying to sell “I’m on the side of the ordinary person”

    I think the real problem with Southport will turn out to be another classic of the Process Stare - SEP. Someone Else’s problem.

    The attacker was referred to Prevent, several times. I will bet that they assessed him as a violent nutter *without a specific political/religious motivation*. So outside their remit. File closed. Lunch anyone?

    Since mental health services are in a state, the file went at the bottom of a big, big stack, there.

    In the responses to Starmer’s Blob stuff, on Reddit, it was interesting to see actual civil servants working through the list of examples - “not our remit, not our remit….”
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,471
    Phil said:

    On the positive side: the cost of solar power continues to drop like a rock - it’s following a silicon chip-like technology curve.

    There’s going to be some thrashing about over the next decade, but the international electrical supply is going to largely decarbonise whatever the pro-fossil fuel lobby tries. The economics make that inevitable.
    Trends can always reverse, of course, and government support is still important in large scale infrastructure investment like the electrification of home energy. But it does seem that most decarbonisation technology is on a journey towards being more economically viable than the alternative anyway.

    This backlash was always going to happen, as backlashes have happened whenever a new technology comes along to replace the old.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 4,712
    edited January 21
    Phil said:

    On the positive side: the cost of solar power continues to drop like a rock - it’s following a silicon chip-like technology curve.

    There’s going to be some thrashing about over the next decade, but the international electrical supply is going to largely decarbonise whatever the pro-fossil fuel lobby tries. The economics make that inevitable.
    I would like to think so, and I know RCS1000 keeps making the point, but I'm not so sure. The world is an energy-hungry place, which means that demand will keep on increasing to match supply. I think this will keep the price of energy sufficiently high for the extraction of fossil fuels to remain economically viable for quite a while yet in the absence of environmental penalties.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,355
    TimS said:

    Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.

    Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.

    "Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
    I've just posted why I think people were convinced of the terrorist motive - the target and the repression of women in Afghanistan.

    At heart I tend to think of anyone who kills in the name of terrorism as mentally ill. But then I am not a repressed Gazan teenager brought up on tales of evil Israelis, or a Frenchman living under Nazi control, or any number of other things.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,504
    TimS said:

    Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.

    Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.

    "Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
    The reason school shooters are not described as terrorists, generally, is that there is no discernible ideology or goal.

    The manifestos that some have created make clear that the shooters themselves have little clear idea of why they are doing it. Beyond a nihilistic rage at not being the In Group.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,355
    tlg86 said:

    https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1881634063351476234

    Charlie Bentley-Astor
    @astor_charlie
    Misinformation, ay? Come and get me then, big boy.

    Nothing I have published or tweeted ahead of the trial has proved to be false. I honoured the contempt of court, which is why you didn't come to get me.

    I knew about failed attack on his old school back in September. I kept my mouth shut for the sake of your precious trial. I wish I hadn't. You needed to be exposed.

    Citizen journalists and counter-cultural commentators - shunnded media outlets like GBN - are a thorn in the Establishment's side but I for one am not going away!

    The UK contempt of court laws are not fit for purpose.


    Yeah, really not sure why that information couldn't have been disclosed. It would have made a big difference to how the attack was viewed.

    I am no expert on legal matters. It seems we have very restrictive reporting laws once charges have been made to preserve the sanctity of the trial process. I can respect that. But is there a case that the restrictions are too severe? Can a jury ever be found in a case like this that knows nothing of the case (and is that even the requirement?)
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,422
    TimS said:

    Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.

    Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.

    "Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
    The thing is, he didn't attack his school. It's the fact he went for girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class that set the alarm bells ringing. So the starting point should have been "why isn't this motivated by hate for girls/women like Taylor Swift, etc.?" And the police should have been open about their thoughts on that. It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the trial.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,286
    tlg86 said:

    https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1881634063351476234

    Charlie Bentley-Astor
    @astor_charlie
    Misinformation, ay? Come and get me then, big boy.

    Nothing I have published or tweeted ahead of the trial has proved to be false. I honoured the contempt of court, which is why you didn't come to get me.

    I knew about failed attack on his old school back in September. I kept my mouth shut for the sake of your precious trial. I wish I hadn't. You needed to be exposed.

    Citizen journalists and counter-cultural commentators - shunnded media outlets like GBN - are a thorn in the Establishment's side but I for one am not going away!

    The UK contempt of court laws are not fit for purpose.


    Yeah, really not sure why that information couldn't have been disclosed. It would have made a big difference to how the attack was viewed.

    There's already a strict test on whether a defendant's previous convictions are mentioned in court. Spreading rumours of what a defendant may or may not have done may influence the jury's deliberation on the case before them.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,965

    Watch the whole thing. He came on jumping around like a toddler. Then pulled a face and thumped the lectern with both hands saying this is what victory tastes like. Then the Nurenberg bit of the rally. Then more performative acting showing what inserting a flag into Mars would be like.

    The salutes were only one part of the show of madness
    What drug would make you act like that?
    I'm not a drug expert.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,322
    Here is one for @leon and his take on conspiracy theory:

    Someone sane who I am in a Whatsapp group with reported that they found this morning they were 'following' Trump on Facebook and that was news to them. Now in the past both myself and my wife have found we have unintentionally been following someone or something in Facebook and I am sure that is down to fat fingers so I dismissed this, particularly as in our cases it was completely innocuous. It has happened at least half a dozen times for both of us and often the following was set up months prior to our discovery.

    Anyway since then there are lots and lots of reports of this happening today. Why? It could be lots of fat fingers over time and the people unaware of it until today when the profile picture changed and they all got notified.

    Or is it something spooky? What do you think @leon? You always gone down the spooky line.

    I'm going for it being innocuous and that they were unintentionally following him through fat fingers over a number of years and all found out today when the profile changed.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    TimS said:

    Terrorism is political violence with the intent to cause terror. It requires a political motive, no matter how warped. That could be global jihad or a united Ireland or anti-wokeness.

    Rudakabana is clearly a psycho and very similar in profile to the teen school shooters who plague the US. He does not seem to have a cause. Nobody calls those school shooters terrorists, largely because they are usually white.

    "Terrorism" loses its meaning if it simply gets extended to include all acts of mass murder by brown or black people. A bit like the other over-used word of our era, genocide.
    Absolute bullshit

    There is plentiful evidence this guy might be a radicalised Islamist type. Allegations he shouted Allahu Akhbar at the scene. Owning Al qaeda manuals. Apparently he is now practising Islam in. Prison. He targeted western girls at a taylor swift party - known Islamist targets. Referred to prevent 3 times. And so on

    We can’t know for sure but then the trial was meant to provide that proof. But now there won’t be a trial

    Instead we have a public inquiry which will last 83 years and make sure anyone that cares is dead by the time it finishes. Neat
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,559
    Morning all :)

    FPT, but deserving of comment:
    Taz said:

    No he wasn’t. It’s bizarre people think he has but after the return of Trump people have various stages on the grief cycle. They’ll get to acceptance eventually
    Most optimistic post of the day. Certain political types wallow in being stuck at anger.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,935
    Barnesian said:

    What drug would make you act like that?
    I'm not a drug expert.
    Cake.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,471
    edited January 21
    DavidL said:

    The Terrorism Act 2000 has a much wider definition:

    In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—

    (a)the action falls within subsection (2),

    (b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

    (c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.

    (2)Action falls within this subsection if it—

    (a)involves serious violence against a person,

    (b)involves serious damage to property,

    (c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,

    (d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or

    (e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

    (3)The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.
    That's not actually a particularly wide provision. It says that for something to be terrorism it has to meet 2 requirements:

    1. It must fit within "subsection 2" (i.e. it must involve serious violence, damage to property, endanger life etc), AND
    2. It must be designed to influence government/org or intimidate the public expressly for a political, religious, racial or ideological cause

    With a sweep-up at the end that also bundles in anything involving guns or bombs.

    Pretty much what we all thought terrorism was. It requires a cause, otherwise it's something else (mass murder, serial killing, stalking, organised crime etc).
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,921
    Barnesian said:

    What drug would make you act like that?
    I'm not a drug expert.
    Cake, at a guess.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,422
    RobD said:

    There's already a strict test on whether a defendant's previous convictions are mentioned in court. Spreading rumours of what a defendant may or may not have done may influence the jury's deliberation on the case before them.
    But he wouldn't have a conviction for attempting to attack his school.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,422
    Serious questions need to be asked about this...

    https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1881639551179030812

    Charlie Bentley-Astor
    @astor_charlie
    His father rang the Police and reported Rudakubana missing - that he left in a taxi and that he "thought" his son was heading to his old school.

    Police apprehended him. He was sent home.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,504

    I would like to think so, and I know RCS1000 keeps making the point, but I'm not so sure. The world is an energy-hungry place, which means that demand will keep on increasing to match supply. I think this will keep the price of energy sufficiently high for the extraction of fossil fuels to remain economically viable for quite a while yet in the absence of environmental penalties.
    Solar is very cheap.

    Solar+batteries is collapsing in price.

    We are not far off Solar + 18hours of batteries being cheaper than Coal, on a level playing field, over the lifecycle. Might even be there in some parts of the world.

    If you live in a not sunny part of the world, you just need more panels. The electronics and batteries stay the same. Panels are very, very cheap.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,471
    tlg86 said:

    The thing is, he didn't attack his school. It's the fact he went for girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class that set the alarm bells ringing. So the starting point should have been "why isn't this motivated by hate for girls/women like Taylor Swift, etc.?" And the police should have been open about their thoughts on that. It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the trial.
    There is some evidence that he may have been aiming for the school and was stopped.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,779
    Nigelb said:

    He's probably found enough wiggle room.
    It won't convince his political opponents, but the Tories have some awkward questions of their own.
    The Fukkers will make hay.

    .."It’s not what we would have usually thought of as terrorism when definitions were drawn up, when guidelines were put in place, when the framework was put in place.
    And we have to recognize that here today, because I think most people would say, looking at the facts of this case, it’s clearly extreme violence, it’s clearly intended to terrorise and I completely accept and understand that, and that is my view.
    Therefore, we have to make sure that the law and the framework for responding is appropriate to the new threat that we face. And we will make whatever changes are necessary in the law to deal with it."

    This is somewhat similar to the point being made by Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent review of terrorist legislation, on the Today programme this morning...
    I think for it usefully to be termed terrorism rather than other forms of violence, there needs to be a conspiracy or a degree of organisation behind it. If for example the perpetrator had been radicalised on social media that could be terrorism.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,921
    tlg86 said:

    The thing is, he didn't attack his school. It's the fact he went for girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class that set the alarm bells ringing. So the starting point should have been "why isn't this motivated by hate for girls/women like Taylor Swift, etc.?" And the police should have been open about their thoughts on that. It wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the trial.
    It looks like he didn't attack his old school because his Dad was concerned enough to report him going there to the Police who intercepted him and just returned him home. That is certainly what is being reported.
  • Good morning

    Listening to Starmer this morning, he admitted he was kept informed throughout and knew all the details

    I do not understand why he announced this at 8.30 before Cooper presents it to the HOC

    He looked very defensive, and not sure it was the most sensible decision to discuss it this morning
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,286
    tlg86 said:

    But he wouldn't have a conviction for attempting to attack his school.
    Blame the CPS for not pressing charges on that one.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,471

    Solar is very cheap.

    Solar+batteries is collapsing in price.

    We are not far off Solar + 18hours of batteries being cheaper than Coal, on a level playing field, over the lifecycle. Might even be there in some parts of the world.

    If you live in a not sunny part of the world, you just need more panels. The electronics and batteries stay the same. Panels are very, very cheap.
    Though interestingly the engineer who came to quote for panels at our French place told me he didn't think batteries would be economic for us quite yet and that selling excess power would be better in the short term. I think because it's a second home so we are not there every day to make use of the daily cycle of discharge and recharge. He predicted those economics would change within about 5 years.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,504

    The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
    Both Oklahoma City and the Unabomber were terrorism. Because it was use of violence in political causes - which is the definition usually used.

    The number of people involved is irrelevant.

    A counter example is the Las Vegas shooter - mass violence *without* a cause. So that’s not terrorism.

  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,965

    The Oklahoma City bombing was by two people (so not lone wolf...) but was definitely terrorism. The Unabomber was a lone wolf and a terrorist, so I'm unsure your definition fits.
    What practical difference does it make labelling an attack as terrorism?
    I'm genuinely puzzled.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 14,305
    Late evening all :)

    Final thought while living through a decidedly average New Zealand summer. There’s a strong likelihood of snow in New Orleans while the UK may have strong winter storms with which to contend.

    When the weather acts counter intuitively to what we are being told about the climate, trying to push the climate argument becomes harder.

    It will take a series of major or catastrophic events probably in the richest parts of the Northern Hemisphere before the terms of the debate change significantly at which point, pace immigration, the demand for radical action will be exponential and unstoppable.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,888
    TimS said:

    There is some evidence that he may have been aiming for the school and was stopped.
    A while back I read something stating that many of these people have no set agenda when they perform the act: often it is just a general rage at the world that can manifest itself in many ways. In some cases at initial questioning they are vague about their motivations, but as time goes on they settle on something more firm.

    I can sort-of believe that, having seen a couple of the rambling and disjointed 'manifestos' that have been written prior to an attack. They're not exactly "What Is to Be Done?"
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,471

    Good morning

    Listening to Starmer this morning, he admitted he was kept informed throughout and knew all the details

    I do not understand why he announced this at 8.30 before Cooper presents it to the HOC

    He looked very defensive, and not sure it was the most sensible decision to discuss it this morning

    I think it was a mistake for him to do it. Cooper is an assured speaker, and she has cultivated an image of unfussily getting things done. She, like Ed Miliband (and unlike several other cabinet ministers), demonstrates the advantage of having been in government before and knowing how the levers of power work.

    She also tends to limit her speeches to the commons. Starmer going out there and "explaining" just stokes the conspiracy fires.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,888
    Barnesian said:

    What practical difference does it make labelling an attack as terrorism?
    I'm genuinely puzzled.
    Because people are asking questions like: why didn't you call it terrorism early on?

    I'm unsure it does make much of a practical difference in this case.

    IMV it matters much more when there are groups or individuals who might be encouraged to perform similar heinous acts.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,422
    TimS said:

    There is some evidence that he may have been aiming for the school and was stopped.
    That was a week before. (see my previous post)

    The dance class he attacked was in back street. He didn't stumble across that. Quite how fussy he was about his target, we don't know, but he knew what he was attacking when left his house that morning.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    Barnesian said:

    What practical difference does it make labelling an attack as terrorism?
    I'm genuinely puzzled.
    Some useful ambiguity maybe gets Starmer off a career-ending hook

    Maybe
  • CJohnCJohn Posts: 75
    kjh said:

    Agree that the Greens and LDs won't waste resources and both those odds are far too short. I would put them both at 100/1. Often in these scenarios the Greens will beat the LDs for 4th place.

    I think Reform are slightly stronger favourites than shown.

    I think the Tories will come a bad third, but I am not so confident about that. I think they will come third, but whether very badly or not I am not so confident.
    So there's no real edge on Reform: the odds for them are about right.

    I'd put them at say 12/10 as I do think the Tories need to go for this; they can't be passive and let Reform become the default right-wing choice.

    So the Tories may do enough to let Labour in: vote Tory, get Labour.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,504
    Barnesian said:

    What practical difference does it make labelling an attack as terrorism?
    I'm genuinely puzzled.
    Different response, politically, socially and legally.

    See the issue of Prevent involvement.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    This was, indeed, a big mistake by Starmer. He’s made himself look very dodgy - and he’s made a lot of voters very angry

    What has he gained?

    “If you’re explaining you’re losing”
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,347
    Labour the value there imo.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,786
    edited January 21
    stodge said:

    Late evening all :)

    Final thought while living through a decidedly average New Zealand summer. There’s a strong likelihood of snow in New Orleans while the UK may have strong winter storms with which to contend.

    When the weather acts counter intuitively to what we are being told about the climate, trying to push the climate argument becomes harder.

    It will take a series of major or catastrophic events probably in the richest parts of the Northern Hemisphere before the terms of the debate change significantly at which point, pace immigration, the demand for radical action will be exponential and unstoppable.

    Even those catastrophic events won't persuade people it's happening. It's the slow creep of climate change that makes it so dangerous.

    Look at the response people got for pointing out that climate change would make wildfires in California more likely, even as temperatures in the state have increased by 1.5c since the 70s. They've been setting record high and record low precipitation, and the snowpack has reduced significantly so they have lost that moderator.

    The "just weather" brigade will still be tweeting furiously even as their houses burn down.
  • theProletheProle Posts: 1,290

    Not without an economic offer it won't.

    What you lay out will scoop dozens of seats but it's not enough to put him into power.
    Isn't the economic offer tied to the first two.
    - We have a crisis in housing and public services in no small part because we are letting in an extra 1% population a year. Fixing this migration will go a long way to fix these issues.
    - Net Zero is a state mandated act of economic self harm. Switching to "drill baby drill" in the North Sea instead of spending billions on Carbon Capture will work wonders for the treasury.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,339
    Is it a foregone conclusion that there will be a by-election? What if the MP gets a fine or community service? I assume it's a first offence anyway.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,322
    CJohn said:

    So there's no real edge on Reform: the odds for them are about right.

    I'd put them at say 12/10 as I do think the Tories need to go for this; they can't be passive and let Reform become the default right-wing choice.

    So the Tories may do enough to let Labour in: vote Tory, get Labour.

    I agree the Tories need to go for it, so this is a nightmare by election for them. Their one hope is to rely on Reform's lack of grass root campaigning skills, but even saying that Reform are learning. They produce good leaflets and a decent poster war would be enough to outweigh the Tories skill on GOTV. So for me it is definitely a Lab/Reform battle.

    Someone mentioned Tories best hope was Hampstead (that is assuming there is a by election there, which I wouldn't bet on). If there is a Hampstead by election the LDs I anticipate would really go for it.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,150

    That's the problem with the right in. this country today, no bloody ambition or vision.

    We should be looking to take back France.
    I always thought Brexit would lead the UK to Rouen :disappointed:
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,888
    This is quite a problematic headline for Labour:

    "Her aunt's regime 'disappeared' people - so why did Starmer make her a minister?"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmy88e7jdlo

    I'd ordinarily take the line that Tulip Siddiq is not responsible for her aunt's misdeeds. But she has certainly not disassociated herself away from her aunt and her wider family.
  • TimSTimS Posts: 14,471
    Eabhal said:

    Even those catastrophic events won't persuade people it's happening. It's the slow creep of climate change that makes it so dangerous.

    Look at the response people got for pointing out that climate change would make wildfires in California more likely, even as temperatures in the state have increased by 1.5c since the 70s. The "just weather" brigade will still be tweeting furiously even as their houses burn down.
    Indeed look at Australia, which is on the front line yet one of the most climate sceptic countries in the West.

    I think these debates go in cycles. I spent vast amounts of time and energy arguing with people online around 2007-2014 about global warming. That was the peak of well funded and organised scepticism, guided by its high priest Anthony Watts on his eponymous website.

    Since then opinion shifted very definitely away from denialism to an acceptance of the basic science and the debate moved on to policy rather than “is it happening” which is where it still was a decade ago. Now we are in a reactionary phase again. It remains to be seen if it goes all the way back to outright denialism or remains on the policy level.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 34,274
    Good morning everyone!

    One has to feel sorry for Rudakabana's parents. His father managed to stop him attacking his old school; presumably he didn't realise his son was carrying a knife when he went out on the fateful morning.
    It might be cruel, given the grief the parents must be carrying, but I think they ought to be questioned, privately, on their son's general state of mind and behaviour.
    Although as a father ..... long ago ..... of teenage sons, and now, again a while ago, a grandfather of teenage boys I realise it can be difficult to know what's in their heads.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970

    Good morning everyone!

    One has to feel sorry for Rudakabana's parents. His father managed to stop him attacking his old school; presumably he didn't realise his son was carrying a knife when he went out on the fateful morning.
    It might be cruel, given the grief the parents must be carrying, but I think they ought to be questioned, privately, on their son's general state of mind and behaviour.
    Although as a father ..... long ago ..... of teenage sons, and now, again a while ago, a grandfather of teenage boys I realise it can be difficult to know what's in their heads.

    If he didn't know he was carrying a knife, then how did the father know his son was intent on villainy?
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 8,965

    Different response, politically, socially and legally.

    See the issue of Prevent involvement.
    So to determine whether a particular event should be labelled terrorism one could ask whether potential Prevent involvement is relevant to that event?

    The main social response is to the event itself, not its label.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,786
    Leon said:

    If he didn't know he was carrying a knife, then how did the father know his son was intent on villainy?
    Different mornings.
  • I'd say the value is with Reform. Conservatives have to work hard on it, can't just write it off, have to make it respectable. Big chance for LD or Green, probably Green, to take Labour votes. It'd be a thankless task, but they do need to try to be an alternative.

    Starmer surely can't go on having bad days like this. But he will. Confirms he knew all along.

    Employment down by nearly 80k straight after budget, it's only heading one way.

    Tulip Siddiq scandal is going to roll and roll because he doesn't have control on it and it will roll him up too. Just depends how tightly.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,504
    Barnesian said:

    So to determine whether a particular event should be labelled terrorism one could ask whether potential Prevent involvement is relevant to that event?

    The main social response is to the event itself, not its label.
    And round and round the philosophy goes.

    Which is action and which is reaction?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,150

    Depends on your definition of terrorism…

    We (elements of the right, particularly) have a bit too much of an obsession with the terrorism/not terrorism thing. It really only matters for how to prevent future similar attacks, in understanding what caused the attacker to do it - i.e. do we need to combat radicalisation to a cause by whatever means or do we need to invest more in mental health services and monitoring/interventions for those deemed a risk (the latter also applies to terrorism, of course).

    Some elements on the right care about it because it helps determine whether ethnic group and ancestry or religion are in any way relevant.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 58,970
    Eabhal said:

    Different mornings.
    So was Rudakabana carrying a knife the morning he went to the school and was stopped by the coppers? If he wasm why wasn't he banged up then?

    If he wasn't why did the father and the coppers stop him? Presumably he must have been making violent verbal threats against the school? But then again, if he was doing thar, why wasn't he arrested?
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 564

    Solar is very cheap.

    Solar+batteries is collapsing in price.

    We are not far off Solar + 18hours of batteries being cheaper than Coal, on a level playing field, over the lifecycle. Might even be there in some parts of the world.

    If you live in a not sunny part of the world, you just need more panels. The electronics and batteries stay the same. Panels are very, very cheap.
    Tesla are well into this market. A 13KwH battery will just about cover daily domestic needs and if you play the tariffs, can reduce your costs by 2/3rds. Variable for payback will be whether future tariffs change.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,108

    Taiwan
    OK. I agree that Taiwan's exclusion is a bad thing. I also understand that WHO, like all big international organisations, is more about compromise than confrontation. In order to do things on a global scale, it goes along with the big powers and the international order.

    You accuse it of playing politics, but it's doing the exact opposite of that. It's avoiding politics and goes along with the fiction that there is one China, as all UN bodies do. I think the world would be a better place if Taiwan had greater international recognition, but it's not the job of the WHO to solve that. Could it do more to involve Taiwan in WHO activity? Probably.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 13,108

    On the "was-Southport-terrorism" question:

    If you do define it as terrorism, then was the Dunblane Massacre terrorism? Hungerford? The Cumbria shootings?

    What is the definition of these things that makes something 'terrorism' and an act that causes terror?

    Terrorism has never been well defined. No point expecting it to be so now!
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,998
    If you are looking for a conspiracy you are always going to find a conspiracy. However, Stephen Bush is well worth reading in the FT today.

    Although Rudakubana has pleaded guilty to possessing Military Studies In The Jihad Against The Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual, a terrorist how-to-guide, he appears to have been interested in it for its methods rather than its motive. Ursula Doyle, the prosecutor, described him as “a young man with a sickening and sustained interest in death and violence”. One reason why Rudakubana was not picked up when he should have been is that he did not fit neatly into any of the usual boxes.

    Keir Starmer is right this morning to say that the answer to this question is to expand the definition of terror. At no point has Rudakubana’s case been treated as “terror-related” precisely because of the absence of a clear underlying ideology. That exposes a flaw in how we think about terror and how we identify threats in a changing world.

    https://www.ft.com/content/e78330c5-cbe0-47be-a637-66f62fe3189b

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,288

    If you are looking for a conspiracy you are always going to find a conspiracy. However, Stephen Bush is well worth reading in the FT today.

    Although Rudakubana has pleaded guilty to possessing Military Studies In The Jihad Against The Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual, a terrorist how-to-guide, he appears to have been interested in it for its methods rather than its motive. Ursula Doyle, the prosecutor, described him as “a young man with a sickening and sustained interest in death and violence”. One reason why Rudakubana was not picked up when he should have been is that he did not fit neatly into any of the usual boxes.

    Keir Starmer is right this morning to say that the answer to this question is to expand the definition of terror. At no point has Rudakubana’s case been treated as “terror-related” precisely because of the absence of a clear underlying ideology. That exposes a flaw in how we think about terror and how we identify threats in a changing world.

    https://www.ft.com/content/e78330c5-cbe0-47be-a637-66f62fe3189b

    And yet he was referred to Prevent not once, but three times.
    What happened there ?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 75,288
    Vance saying last week that no Jan 6 rioters convicted of violence would be pardoned.
    https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1881544641054658986
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,150
    edited January 21

    This is quite a problematic headline for Labour:

    "Her aunt's regime 'disappeared' people - so why did Starmer make her a minister?"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmy88e7jdlo

    I'd ordinarily take the line that Tulip Siddiq is not responsible for her aunt's misdeeds. But she has certainly not disassociated herself away from her aunt and her wider family.

    The obvious implication is that Starmer feared he would be disappeared if he wasn't nice to the niece? :wink:

    Looks like bad politics again from Labour. Having an allegedly highly dodgy aunt shouldn't disqualify you from office, but it should lead to the extent of any links being carefully investigated before being offered a post.
This discussion has been closed.