"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
I see Lord Young is featured looking very swish and confident in his nice suit. Odd. The last I heard was that he'd been cancelled by the woke tyranny and rendered a pauper.
The intensity of complaints of cancellation is inversely dependent on the actual level of cancellation. People who are really cancelled don't get into the papers.
This might be controversial but I don't find Trump's desire to run for a third term particularly outrageous. The twenty second amendment is pretty new in constitutional terms and was arguably only introduced because of Republican anger at FDR. What would be outrageous is if Trump achieved this by just ignoring the constitution or pressuring the Supreme Court to set the amendment aside.
Yes, but that's the point. The proper way for Trump to seek a third term would be to amend the US constitution to repeal the 22nd Amendment - but that's difficult to do unless he can manipulate Congress so as to achieve a two-thirds majority (the states might be easier - there is an exploitable loophole there).
He won't though. His style, both in business and politics, is to push ahead irrespective of the law and challenge others to come against him. And given that there is sufficient wriggle room in the constitution under the 25th Amendment for the Electoral College to 'elect' a president who doesn't qualify, there's certainly scope for the SCOTUS to rule that states should not prevent such candidates from being denied access to the ballot on those grounds.
There isn't really any scope though, unless the supreme court decides to ignore the clear intention of the 22nd amendment using transparently dodgy sophistry. At which point the whole constitution is up for grabs.
Apologies. It's the 20th Amendment, not the 25th. Section 3 is the crucial one:
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died, the Vice President-elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
That clearly and unambiguously allows for a scenario where a president is elected despite not being qualified. Now, there's an argument that that logically can only apply where a president-elect will qualify at some point (eg if elected at age 33), but it's not a slam-dunk: it's also possible to read it as written, that Electoral Votes for *any* candidate are valid, whether qualified or not (or that it's for Congress to determine), and hence such a candidate should not be disqualified from ballot access solely on those grounds. It is, of course, possible to argue that a candidate disqualified by the 22nd could nonetheless become qualified if the Constitution is subsequently amended.
The SCOTUS does have a long and not-very-distinguished history of "using transparently dodgy sophistry". I certainly wouldn't rely on this current incarnation of eschewing such methods.
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
Yes, and the assessment has been pushed out to 2028 iirc, it's a bit of a joke really for a country that has hugely rising energy demand with AI being our biggest growth industry and companies looking for cheap, stable power supply which neither wind nor solar can provide.
There are a few things which ought to be JFDI. If we have any interest in SMRs, then this is one of them.
If we're going to buy SMRs anyway, then this represents far better value than, for example, the carbon capture funding, which serves only to make power more expensive. There is a world market (and it had obvious benefits for eg naval reactor engineering) which we could have a decent shot at.
It’s not we have a decent shot at - it’s something we know we can do because it’s something Rolls Royce already build for our nukes and something that is essential. I’m at a loss as to why we haven’t found £5bn to kick to things off
The Proper Policy has been decided upon, in the structure of government.
1) Wind 2) Solar 3) Large nukes
Anything else would upset policy. In particular, if SMR work, large nukes are dead.
An entire political and engineering structure demolished. People with the wrong skills. Civil servants with contacts in the wrong companies.
There really isn’t much difference technically between large and small reactors.
And if the skillset is building large reactors the people should be the first people out the door for the efficiency savings because they aren’t competent given the cost overruns
There are massive differences - if the SMRs are derived from naval practise, they will be completely different in design. The whole factory build vs on site as well.
Just noting FPT that Lord Sumption has apparently come out in favour of Letby being perhaps innocent, though the report in the Mail is extremely thin and adds nothing of substance to the story, though Sumption is one of the weightiest figure in the law.
FWIW, though I think the case against Letby is sound, I think there is going to be enough for the CCRC to refer the verdicts back to the Court of Appeal.
That's the easy bit. There is a very recent example of how the CA deals with CCRC referrals, from a case where the evidence is very thin indeed and where there was apparent grounds that a 'cell confession' (a notorious field) had been retracted by the unreliable criminal alleging it had been made.
The CA carved through it with an interesting mix of scalpel and bulldozer, upholding the conviction. Not for the faint hearted it is here:
Compared with this the case against Letby is strong.
I have no idea on the Letby case (guilt is deterministic not statistical and statistical evidence should not be sufficient for a guilty verdict) but "Supreme Judge has an reckon because some of the people he knows has a reckon" has exactly the same status as "bloke down the pub said so". Sumption is far too keen on talking to the press.
The evidence against Letby -- which was presented over 26 weeks, which shows how much there was and how much it was scrutinised -- was not purely statistical.
I wasn't at the trial but SFAICS no expert statistical evidence was called; it didn't enter into the trial (correct me if I am wrong).
It is not statistical evidence to say that occurrences XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A was present on each occasion. It is factual evidence.
Statistical evidence is when a DNA sample is found at location X, and an expert says there is a 1 in Y chance of it belonging/not belonging to person Z.
Thats playing fast and loose with how the evidence was used. If you say "XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A" - how likely was that? Then you are using the public's perception of statistics.
Don’t all trials involve saying something along the lines of “how likely was that”? That’s how trials work.
I was on a jury trial once, in a murder case. We were shown various lines of evidence, including (grainy) CCTV footage of the accused or someone very similar looking going towards where the murder was convicted and, shortly after, running away from the scene. That’s circumstantial evidence: there was no video of the murder. We were asked how likely was that. How likely was it that someone very similar looking and dressed the same would’ve have been in the recording? How likely was it that the accused was the man in the footage? How likely was it, if he was the man in the footage, that he had committed the murder?
I encourage those who think he is not seeking to be a dictator to think about what piece of evidence would change your mind. Write it down. Then if/when it happens - change your mind.
Just noting FPT that Lord Sumption has apparently come out in favour of Letby being perhaps innocent, though the report in the Mail is extremely thin and adds nothing of substance to the story, though Sumption is one of the weightiest figure in the law.
FWIW, though I think the case against Letby is sound, I think there is going to be enough for the CCRC to refer the verdicts back to the Court of Appeal.
That's the easy bit. There is a very recent example of how the CA deals with CCRC referrals, from a case where the evidence is very thin indeed and where there was apparent grounds that a 'cell confession' (a notorious field) had been retracted by the unreliable criminal alleging it had been made.
The CA carved through it with an interesting mix of scalpel and bulldozer, upholding the conviction. Not for the faint hearted it is here:
Compared with this the case against Letby is strong.
I have no idea on the Letby case (guilt is deterministic not statistical and statistical evidence should not be sufficient for a guilty verdict) but "Supreme Judge has an reckon because some of the people he knows has a reckon" has exactly the same status as "bloke down the pub said so". Sumption is far too keen on talking to the press.
The evidence against Letby -- which was presented over 26 weeks, which shows how much there was and how much it was scrutinised -- was not purely statistical.
I wasn't at the trial but SFAICS no expert statistical evidence was called; it didn't enter into the trial (correct me if I am wrong).
It is not statistical evidence to say that occurrences XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A was present on each occasion. It is factual evidence.
Statistical evidence is when a DNA sample is found at location X, and an expert says there is a 1 in Y chance of it belonging/not belonging to person Z.
Thats playing fast and loose with how the evidence was used. If you say "XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A" - how likely was that? Then you are using the public's perception of statistics.
Don’t all trials involve saying something along the lines of “how likely was that”? That’s how trials work.
I was on a jury trial once, in a murder case. We were shown various lines of evidence, including (grainy) CCTV footage of the accused or someone very similar looking going towards where the murder was convicted and, shortly after, running away from the scene. That’s circumstantial evidence: there was no video of the murder. We were asked how likely was that. How likely was it that someone very similar looking and dressed the same would’ve have been in the recording? How likely was it that the accused was the man in the footage? How likely was it, if he was the man in the footage, that he had committed the murder?
I think that's fair. As I understand it, one (and yes there was a lot of other evidence) of the strands of evidence against her is the chart of who was on duty when incidents happened. There is a contention for some that this chart may be flawed - people started to suspect Letby, then looked at deaths/incidents when she was there and then generated the table. Its certain that other deaths/incidents occurred at the unit when she was not there, but these were deemed not to be suspicious.
I have no idea if she is guilty or not, or if even babies were murdered or harmed or not. I didn't sit through the trial. I suspect there will be an appeal/re-trial at some point. I have no idea how that will go.
I am very conscious that previous miscarriages of justice have happened, so any asserting with supreme confidence that she is guilty (other than in the legally correct form - i.e. she was found guilty in court) is, in my opinion, probably slightly too confident in the infallability of our legal system.
It is not statistical evidence to say that occurrences XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A was present on each occasion. It is factual evidence.
That is absolutely statistical evidence, because as I understand it they did not say that similar occurrences HJKNP occurred when person A was not present
The evidence presented was not statistically accurate
That is an odd definition of what counts as “statistical”.
IIRC… The prosecution focused on unexpected deaths. Their expert witness determined which were unexpected deaths before looking at which Letby was on shift for. The defence did not question this bit of the analysis, I think. Everyone accepted that some deaths were expected. They were not “similar occurrences”.
That said, I don’t think the number of expected deaths was as high as the five you suggest.
@viewcode I've just now managed the time to read your header FPT. Thank you, it's very interesting. I will go back and read the comments now but may I say that, increasingly over the years, my own feelings of patriotism do relate to the land, which will continue, whoever lives there and whatever their culture.
Are you a Liberal?
Clear the way for liberty, the land must all be free, Liberals will not falter from the fight, tho’ stern it be, ‘Til the flag we love so well will fly from sea to sea O’er the land that is free for the people.
Used to be but I don't know what I am, politically, any longer. All the parties seem to have moved away from me in one way or another - significant ways that I can't shrug off.
But I oppose them. They are unnecessary and deeply anti-democratic - there is already a mechanism called "elections" which limits a politician's term as head of state. And if the American people are idiotic enough to want Trump for another term, they should be allowed that option.
It is comforting to think that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for this particular incumbent to run again though.
While I broadly agree with you (that term limits are anti-democratic), I think the argument for them is that the presidency is such a powerful and honoured position, that extensive time in the role also has an anti-democratic effect and presidential term limits serve as another check or balance. Now the Supreme Court has given the president almost unlimited power, that argument is stronger.
That was precisely why they were brought in, by a Republican Party which saw Roosevelt as accreting executive power which threatened the constitutional balance. Trump has taken executive power well beyond anything Roosevelt tried. Even Roosevelt's threat to expand the Supreme Court (which came to nothing in the end) is something the GOP has now echoed,
It has been an issue since the Constitution was first drafted. Roosevelt's fourth term brought it to a head.
Washington (very wisely) not seeking a third term established an expectation that it was a good thing for presidents not to do more than two. And no one did until Roosevelt.
Actually several two term presidents wanted to go for a third. Grant actually tried - but the scandals caught up with him. Lincoln was expected to go for a third term because of reconstruction - and had discussed it IIRC
But I oppose them. They are unnecessary and deeply anti-democratic - there is already a mechanism called "elections" which limits a politician's term as head of state. And if the American people are idiotic enough to want Trump for another term, they should be allowed that option.
It is comforting to think that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for this particular incumbent to run again though.
While I broadly agree with you (that term limits are anti-democratic), I think the argument for them is that the presidency is such a powerful and honoured position, that extensive time in the role also has an anti-democratic effect and presidential term limits serve as another check or balance. Now the Supreme Court has given the president almost unlimited power, that argument is stronger.
That was precisely why they were brought in, by a Republican Party which saw Roosevelt as accreting executive power which threatened the constitutional balance. Trump has taken executive power well beyond anything Roosevelt tried. Even Roosevelt's threat to expand the Supreme Court (which came to nothing in the end) is something the GOP has now echoed,
It has been an issue since the Constitution was first drafted. Roosevelt's fourth term brought it to a head.
Washington (very wisely) not seeking a third term established an expectation that it was a good thing for presidents not to do more than two. And no one did until Roosevelt.
Washington didn't seek a third term because he was worn out. To the extent that he set a precedent, it was driven more by making a virtue out of a preference than any hard principle and never completely set into one. Grant considered running for a third term in 1876 but unpopularity with his administration ruled him out. The same applied to Cleveland in 1896. Theodore Roosevelt did run for a third term in 1912 (albeit only a second elected one). Wilson considered running in 1920, despite being stricken by a stroke. Coolidge was widely expected to run for a third term in 1928 (although also only a second elected one), before unexpectedly ruling himself out.
Chance or preference prevented third-term presidencies before FDR but not any widespread sense that such candidatures were morally illegitimate.
The header is about an autocratic takeover of the US by Trump, but Le Pen, Georgescu and Bolsanaro are three characters banned from running for office by their relevant authorities most recently. All suspected of and convicted of various crimes by their courts, all right-wingers. This to my mind should not be the case. Anti-H block ran imprisoned candidates in Ireland in 1981.
The header is about an autocratic takeover of the US by Trump, but Le Pen, Georgescu and Bolsanaro are three characters banned from running for office by their relevant authorities most recently. This to my mind should not be the case. Anti-H block ran imprisoned candidates in Ireland in 1981.
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
The header is about an autocratic takeover of the US by Trump, but Le Pen, Georgescu and Bolsanaro are three characters banned from running for office by their relevant authorities most recently. This to my mind should not be the case. Anti-H block ran imprisoned candidates in Ireland in 1981.
The past is another world I'm afraid.
Were the anti h block candidates convicted of electoral breaches?
Just noting FPT that Lord Sumption has apparently come out in favour of Letby being perhaps innocent, though the report in the Mail is extremely thin and adds nothing of substance to the story, though Sumption is one of the weightiest figure in the law.
FWIW, though I think the case against Letby is sound, I think there is going to be enough for the CCRC to refer the verdicts back to the Court of Appeal.
That's the easy bit. There is a very recent example of how the CA deals with CCRC referrals, from a case where the evidence is very thin indeed and where there was apparent grounds that a 'cell confession' (a notorious field) had been retracted by the unreliable criminal alleging it had been made.
The CA carved through it with an interesting mix of scalpel and bulldozer, upholding the conviction. Not for the faint hearted it is here:
Compared with this the case against Letby is strong.
Other way round for me. The case against Letby has been eviscerated by the experts but it is hard to see a route through the legal system (eta given rules around what constitutes *new* evidence) to a successful appeal.
The header is about an autocratic takeover of the US by Trump, but Le Pen, Georgescu and Bolsanaro are three characters banned from running for office by their relevant authorities most recently. This to my mind should not be the case. Anti-H block ran imprisoned candidates in Ireland in 1981.
The past is another world I'm afraid.
Were the anti h block candidates convicted of electoral breaches?
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
Paywalled, so I cannot read the article, but the actual headline is different:
"A toddler was suspended from nursery after being accused of being transphobic or homophobic, The Telegraph can reveal..."
Note the "or homophobic".
Without reading the article, I see several questions: *) Should toddlers be suspended from nursery/school for bad behaviour? *) Can 'bad behaviour' be classed as homophobic or transphobic comments? *) How many comments should be the trigger?
It's notable that very few details are available, and that the stats are for years 2022-3 and that the Telegraph seems to reach quite a lot of conclusions.
It's interesting that the paper and talking heads are going on about 'toddlers being blamed'. I'd say that the issue is that at that 3 or 4 (not toddlers btw) they will be parroting things their parents have said, so it's a matter for the parents to sort out their own behaviour.
I think we can expect a PMQ on this on Wednesday.
I wonder how many people are going to blame Mr Starmer? Jenrick?
One of my teacher grandchildren was, some time ago and only for a short while, a supply teacher in a school where among year 12 and 13 there were quite a few racist and homophobic 'children' who supported their statements with such phrases as 'my Dad says'!
@viewcode I've just now managed the time to read your header FPT. Thank you, it's very interesting. I will go back and read the comments now but may I say that, increasingly over the years, my own feelings of patriotism do relate to the land, which will continue, whoever lives there and whatever their culture.
Are you a Liberal?
Clear the way for liberty, the land must all be free, Liberals will not falter from the fight, tho’ stern it be, ‘Til the flag we love so well will fly from sea to sea O’er the land that is free for the people.
Used to be but I don't know what I am, politically, any longer. All the parties seem to have moved away from me in one way or another - significant ways that I can't shrug off.
Interview with Davey on BBC TV early this morning. Seemed very calm, and, impressively, didn't rule out the possibility that he might turn out to be wrong about something. Pulled me back towards the LibDems.
Given your active praise of Trump and Farage, this is a bit like the guy who shot his parents asking for clemency because he was an orphan.
I do not think democracy will in fact die- it has been written off many times- but I do reserve particular wrath for someone who actively wants it to die and supports people who are trying to kill it.
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
We should absolutely look at an American solution as part of a thorough assessment
The issue is that the treasury scoring method puts zero weight on the strategic value of domestic capabilities
Which is frankly insane.
How do they weight the potential economic value of kickstarting a domestic manufacturer ? Or is that also ignored ?
In 2008 Sheffield Forge Masters had a £150 million loan guarantee arranged to buy a BFO press to create pressure vessels for small medium reactors. That would have meant that we could have a domestic nuclear power industry.
The coalition government of 2010 cancelled that loan guarantee and there was no chance whatsoever of Westinghouse starting to build in this country.
Nick Clegg was a Sheffield MP. He must’ve known the costs nationally and locally to us and our industry and yet he still accepted that as part of the coalition agreement.
Sometimes it’s very hard not to despise people and politics.
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
A referee kung-fu kicked a member of a Peruvian football team’s backroom staff as the coach attempted to attack the official with a plastic bottle.
Luis Alegre was still brandishing a red card as he aimed his his right boot as the jaw of the man invading the pitch amid angry on-field protests near Lima.
Alegre’s martial arts-style reaction was sparked by apparent threats of violence as he appeared to attempt to send off a member of the Magdalena CEDEC bench.
The confrontation erupted in the 82nd minute of Sport Huaquilla’s Copa Peru match against Magdalena CEDEC in Ancash, north of the the Peruvian capital.
Alegre hit out as the man ran towards him from the away team’s bench with the apparent intention of assaulting him with a plastic bottle in his hand.
The header is about an autocratic takeover of the US by Trump, but Le Pen, Georgescu and Bolsanaro are three characters banned from running for office by their relevant authorities most recently. This to my mind should not be the case. Anti-H block ran imprisoned candidates in Ireland in 1981.
The past is another world I'm afraid.
Were the anti h block candidates convicted of electoral breaches?
No. Murder, which is arguably worse.
People have been murdering each other since time immemorial.
But willfully smearing shit all over your own prison cell? UGH!
Serious point though - how does the solar power that's fed in to the grid overnight having been stored at generation site batteries get counted?
There's a section for stored energy generation. We don't have a lot of battery storage though. Solar is still, despite what Robert might say, not viable in the UK. We just need to dump £20bn into the RR modular nuclear reactors and get them started up with a manufacturing pilot line and the first few reactors built and running by 2030. If we approve it and get RR started today we might make it but the government moves like molasses and our tech leadership is slipping away without that big order and backing for RR from the UK.
As a side note I was speaking to an energy investor here in Florence today and he confirmed what I already suspected that RR and other UK companies struggle to get overseas money because they don't have the UK government vote of confidence. It's difficult to get foreign governments to buy something that its own one seems uninterested in and he was saying that's the resistance RR are running into when they make their sales pitch "if it's as good as you say then why is your own government not already placing an order for 10 of these and looking at an American solution instead?" is the question they can't answer.
Are we actually looking at an American solution? Wtf?
We should absolutely look at an American solution as part of a thorough assessment
The issue is that the treasury scoring method puts zero weight on the strategic value of domestic capabilities
Which is frankly insane.
How do they weight the potential economic value of kickstarting a domestic manufacturer ? Or is that also ignored ?
In 2008 Sheffield Forge Masters had a £150 million loan guarantee arranged to buy a BFO press to create pressure vessels for small medium reactors. That would have meant that we could have a domestic nuclear power industry.
The coalition government of 2010 cancelled that loan guarantee and there was no chance whatsoever of Westinghouse starting to build in this country.
Nick Clegg was a Sheffield MP. He must’ve known the costs nationally and locally to us and our industry and yet he still accepted that as part of the coalition agreement.
Sometimes it’s very hard not to despise people and politics.
I blame Nick but Dave and Gideon also deserve contempt.
A referee kung-fu kicked a member of a Peruvian football team’s backroom staff as the coach attempted to attack the official with a plastic bottle.
Luis Alegre was still brandishing a red card as he aimed his his right boot as the jaw of the man invading the pitch amid angry on-field protests near Lima.
Alegre’s martial arts-style reaction was sparked by apparent threats of violence as he appeared to attempt to send off a member of the Magdalena CEDEC bench.
The confrontation erupted in the 82nd minute of Sport Huaquilla’s Copa Peru match against Magdalena CEDEC in Ancash, north of the the Peruvian capital.
Alegre hit out as the man ran towards him from the away team’s bench with the apparent intention of assaulting him with a plastic bottle in his hand.
The header is about an autocratic takeover of the US by Trump, but Le Pen, Georgescu and Bolsanaro are three characters banned from running for office by their relevant authorities most recently. All suspected of and convicted of various crimes by their courts, all right-wingers. This to my mind should not be the case. Anti-H block ran imprisoned candidates in Ireland in 1981.
Right wingers have a rather laxer interpretation of personal probity than the rest of us. Possibly because making money is often high on their agenda. As it happens I'm not particularly happy about M. L-P as she was a surefire loser and It's possible a more credible candidate might take her place
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
Paywalled, so I cannot read the article, but the actual headline is different:
"A toddler was suspended from nursery after being accused of being transphobic or homophobic, The Telegraph can reveal..."
Note the "or homophobic".
Without reading the article, I see several questions: *) Should toddlers be suspended from nursery/school for bad behaviour? *) Can 'bad behaviour' be classed as homophobic or transphobic comments? *) How many comments should be the trigger?
Handy tip: for the Telegraph, and some other sites. When you get a paywall message, if you click on "reader mode" in the address bar (often a page icon) then change to another page, and then hit "back" on your browser - it'll normally let you read it.
"Toddler kicked out of nursery for being transphobic Child suspended from state school for ‘abuse against sexual orientation and gender identity’, Department for Education data show" (£)
If you get convicted of an imprisonable offence, in most democracies, you can’t stand for public office. In the U.K. you get kicked out of parliament.
But you can stand as an MP with a record, even while in prison.
Provided not serving a jail term of more than a year you can stand as an MP yes but interestingly you cannot stand as Mayor of London, for the London Assembly or as a local councillor in the UK at county, district, unitary, city or even parish level if you have served a jail term of 3 months or more even if suspended in that last 5 years.
Just noting FPT that Lord Sumption has apparently come out in favour of Letby being perhaps innocent, though the report in the Mail is extremely thin and adds nothing of substance to the story, though Sumption is one of the weightiest figure in the law.
FWIW, though I think the case against Letby is sound, I think there is going to be enough for the CCRC to refer the verdicts back to the Court of Appeal.
That's the easy bit. There is a very recent example of how the CA deals with CCRC referrals, from a case where the evidence is very thin indeed and where there was apparent grounds that a 'cell confession' (a notorious field) had been retracted by the unreliable criminal alleging it had been made.
The CA carved through it with an interesting mix of scalpel and bulldozer, upholding the conviction. Not for the faint hearted it is here:
Compared with this the case against Letby is strong.
I have no idea on the Letby case (guilt is deterministic not statistical and statistical evidence should not be sufficient for a guilty verdict) but "Supreme Judge has an reckon because some of the people he knows has a reckon" has exactly the same status as "bloke down the pub said so". Sumption is far too keen on talking to the press.
The evidence against Letby -- which was presented over 26 weeks, which shows how much there was and how much it was scrutinised -- was not purely statistical.
I wasn't at the trial but SFAICS no expert statistical evidence was called; it didn't enter into the trial (correct me if I am wrong).
It is not statistical evidence to say that occurrences XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A was present on each occasion. It is factual evidence.
Statistical evidence is when a DNA sample is found at location X, and an expert says there is a 1 in Y chance of it belonging/not belonging to person Z.
Thats playing fast and loose with how the evidence was used. If you say "XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A" - how likely was that? Then you are using the public's perception of statistics.
Don’t all trials involve saying something along the lines of “how likely was that”? That’s how trials work.
I was on a jury trial once, in a murder case. We were shown various lines of evidence, including (grainy) CCTV footage of the accused or someone very similar looking going towards where the murder was convicted and, shortly after, running away from the scene. That’s circumstantial evidence: there was no video of the murder. We were asked how likely was that. How likely was it that someone very similar looking and dressed the same would’ve have been in the recording? How likely was it that the accused was the man in the footage? How likely was it, if he was the man in the footage, that he had committed the murder?
I think that's fair. As I understand it, one (and yes there was a lot of other evidence) of the strands of evidence against her is the chart of who was on duty when incidents happened. There is a contention for some that this chart may be flawed - people started to suspect Letby, then looked at deaths/incidents when she was there and then generated the table. Its certain that other deaths/incidents occurred at the unit when she was not there, but these were deemed not to be suspicious.
I have no idea if she is guilty or not, or if even babies were murdered or harmed or not. I didn't sit through the trial. I suspect there will be an appeal/re-trial at some point. I have no idea how that will go.
I am very conscious that previous miscarriages of justice have happened, so any asserting with supreme confidence that she is guilty (other than in the legally correct form - i.e. she was found guilty in court) is, in my opinion, probably slightly too confident in the infallability of our legal system.
Finger pointing senior management deflecting blame. Not much different from the post office?
The header is about an autocratic takeover of the US by Trump, but Le Pen, Georgescu and Bolsanaro are three characters banned from running for office by their relevant authorities most recently. All suspected of and convicted of various crimes by their courts, all right-wingers. This to my mind should not be the case. Anti-H block ran imprisoned candidates in Ireland in 1981.
Tommy Robinson is in prison for a peculiarly long time. The Germans are close to banning the AfD. Trump came within 2cm of being shot dead (and that's when they weren't using lawfare against him). Orban is being atacked by the EU. And so on and so forth. Now, you can justify each of these cases individually, you can argue Trump's almost-killer was a loner (unlikely, to my mind, but whatever) - the point is there certainly appears to be a pattern of dubious leftwing-Establishment action against the radical/pooulist right; the law is being bent to prevent them reaching power, and maybe bullets too
Perhaps it is justified? Several PBers have openly admitted disappointment that Trump wasn't killed, as they see his death as morally preferable to his being in power
Either way, we should view this for what it is. Democracy is in brisk retreat (I believe it is doomed) and the two sides are amorally using the law against each other, and soon they will be using violence
Just noting FPT that Lord Sumption has apparently come out in favour of Letby being perhaps innocent, though the report in the Mail is extremely thin and adds nothing of substance to the story, though Sumption is one of the weightiest figure in the law.
FWIW, though I think the case against Letby is sound, I think there is going to be enough for the CCRC to refer the verdicts back to the Court of Appeal.
That's the easy bit. There is a very recent example of how the CA deals with CCRC referrals, from a case where the evidence is very thin indeed and where there was apparent grounds that a 'cell confession' (a notorious field) had been retracted by the unreliable criminal alleging it had been made.
The CA carved through it with an interesting mix of scalpel and bulldozer, upholding the conviction. Not for the faint hearted it is here:
Compared with this the case against Letby is strong.
I have no idea on the Letby case (guilt is deterministic not statistical and statistical evidence should not be sufficient for a guilty verdict) but "Supreme Judge has an reckon because some of the people he knows has a reckon" has exactly the same status as "bloke down the pub said so". Sumption is far too keen on talking to the press.
The evidence against Letby -- which was presented over 26 weeks, which shows how much there was and how much it was scrutinised -- was not purely statistical.
I wasn't at the trial but SFAICS no expert statistical evidence was called; it didn't enter into the trial (correct me if I am wrong).
It is not statistical evidence to say that occurrences XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A was present on each occasion. It is factual evidence.
Statistical evidence is when a DNA sample is found at location X, and an expert says there is a 1 in Y chance of it belonging/not belonging to person Z.
Thats playing fast and loose with how the evidence was used. If you say "XYZABCDEFG occurred when person A" - how likely was that? Then you are using the public's perception of statistics.
Don’t all trials involve saying something along the lines of “how likely was that”? That’s how trials work.
I was on a jury trial once, in a murder case. We were shown various lines of evidence, including (grainy) CCTV footage of the accused or someone very similar looking going towards where the murder was convicted and, shortly after, running away from the scene. That’s circumstantial evidence: there was no video of the murder. We were asked how likely was that. How likely was it that someone very similar looking and dressed the same would’ve have been in the recording? How likely was it that the accused was the man in the footage? How likely was it, if he was the man in the footage, that he had committed the murder?
I think that's fair. As I understand it, one (and yes there was a lot of other evidence) of the strands of evidence against her is the chart of who was on duty when incidents happened. There is a contention for some that this chart may be flawed - people started to suspect Letby, then looked at deaths/incidents when she was there and then generated the table. Its certain that other deaths/incidents occurred at the unit when she was not there, but these were deemed not to be suspicious.
I have no idea if she is guilty or not, or if even babies were murdered or harmed or not. I didn't sit through the trial. I suspect there will be an appeal/re-trial at some point. I have no idea how that will go.
I am very conscious that previous miscarriages of justice have happened, so any asserting with supreme confidence that she is guilty (other than in the legally correct form - i.e. she was found guilty in court) is, in my opinion, probably slightly too confident in the infallability of our legal system.
Finger pointing senior management deflecting blame. Not much different from the post office?
It's the opposite. It was almost impossible to convince management that they had a killer nurse. Indeed the whistleblowing doctors were forced to apologise to Letby.
Follow Some observations about the Marine Le Pen verdict:
1) WOW. They really went for it: prison term (w/electronic tag) and 5 years of ineligibility. That's almost exactly what the prosecutors asked for, so she's seriously guilty.
2) Will this halt the progress of the far-right in France? No. But... 1/
Emile Chabal @emile-chabal.bsky.social · 15m ...it's a huge embarrassment and a serious setback, electorally, too. The FN/RN is a Le Pen fiefdom. If it's decapitated, it'll unleash serious tensions.
3) Party is being fined 1 million EUR. This is also a big deal. Potentially guts the party's finances. Serious knock-on effects... 2/
Can any French legal experts explain why she can’t appeal?
I had thought that embezzlement was pretty much a rite of passage, for most French politicians.
My understanding was she didn't actually embezzle anything, more things in the wrong column in EU MEP short money rather than jacuzzis and mink coats.
If she somehow manages to overturn it, she's now a shoe in. They never learn.
“They never learn” is an interesting tell. It’s the idea / assumption that the judiciary are not actually independent but doing the will of the government.
Is that the case here? French courts have repeatedly prosecuted politicians of all sides on corruption charges. Should the far right be exempted on the basis it will “further encourage the far right”?
So of course has a foreign court: it was New York that did for the not-far-right Dominique Strauss Kahn.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=395324 South Korea is expected to face pressure from the U.S. government to allow American troops stationed in the country to be deployed in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, analysts said Monday, following an alleged secret Pentagon memo that describes "deterring China's seizure of Taiwan" as its focus.
This contentious idea would shift the primary mission of the 28,500 U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) troops from deterring North Korean threats to countering China — a key element of the Donald Trump administration's foreign policy. For Seoul, this could create a security vacuum and complicate its relations with Beijing...
..The secret document, allegedly signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, was reportedly distributed within the department in mid-March.
The document describes China as the department's "sole pacing threat," and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland — as the Pentagon's sole pacing scenario. It further states that the Pentagon will pressure allies in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia to increase their responsibility in deterring threats from Russia, North Korea and Iran...
ON topic, can anyone think of some seriously horrible drinks?
I am compiling a list, for a project, of the world's worst beverages. They don't have to be alcoholic. eg a friend has just told me of "Franz Josef Bitter Water" which is apparently the world's most disgusting water
The header is about an autocratic takeover of the US by Trump, but Le Pen, Georgescu and Bolsanaro are three characters banned from running for office by their relevant authorities most recently. All suspected of and convicted of various crimes by their courts, all right-wingers. This to my mind should not be the case. Anti-H block ran imprisoned candidates in Ireland in 1981.
Tommy Robinson is in prison for a peculiarly long time. The Germans are close to banning the AfD. Trump came within 2cm of being shot dead (and that's when they weren't using lawfare against him). Orban is being atacked by the EU. And so on and so forth. Now, you can justify each of these cases individually, you can argue Trump's almost-killer was a loner (unlikely, to my mind, but whatever) - the point is there certainly appears to be a pattern of dubious leftwing-Establishment action against the radical/pooulist right; the law is being bent to prevent them reaching power, and maybe bullets too
Perhaps it is justified? Several PBers have openly admitted disappointment that Trump wasn't killed, as they see his death as morally preferable to his being in power
Either way, we should view this for what it is. Democracy is in brisk retreat (I believe it is doomed) and the two sides are amorally using the law against each other, and soon they will be using violence
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
ON topic, can anyone think of some seriously horrible drinks?
I am compiling a list, for a project, of the world's worst beverages. They don't have to be alcoholic. eg a friend has just told me of "Franz Josef Bitter Water" which is apparently the world's most disgusting water
ON topic, can anyone think of some seriously horrible drinks?
I am compiling a list, for a project, of the world's worst beverages. They don't have to be alcoholic. eg a friend has just told me of "Franz Josef Bitter Water" which is apparently the world's most disgusting water
ON topic, can anyone think of some seriously horrible drinks?
I am compiling a list, for a project, of the world's worst beverages. They don't have to be alcoholic. eg a friend has just told me of "Franz Josef Bitter Water" which is apparently the world's most disgusting water
The header is about an autocratic takeover of the US by Trump, but Le Pen, Georgescu and Bolsanaro are three characters banned from running for office by their relevant authorities most recently. All suspected of and convicted of various crimes by their courts, all right-wingers. This to my mind should not be the case. Anti-H block ran imprisoned candidates in Ireland in 1981.
Tommy Robinson is in prison for a peculiarly long time. The Germans are close to banning the AfD. Trump came within 2cm of being shot dead (and that's when they weren't using lawfare against him). Orban is being atacked by the EU. And so on and so forth. Now, you can justify each of these cases individually, you can argue Trump's almost-killer was a loner (unlikely, to my mind, but whatever) - the point is there certainly appears to be a pattern of dubious leftwing-Establishment action against the radical/pooulist right; the law is being bent to prevent them reaching power, and maybe bullets too
Perhaps it is justified? Several PBers have openly admitted disappointment that Trump wasn't killed, as they see his death as morally preferable to his being in power
Either way, we should view this for what it is. Democracy is in brisk retreat (I believe it is doomed) and the two sides are amorally using the law against each other, and soon they will be using violence
Out of interest. Did you think the right-wing establishment was dooming democracy when...
JFK was assassinated. Maggie prevented Republican prisoners from standing for parliament. Arthur Scargill was arrested. Boris Johnson tried to impeach Tony Blair.
The header is about an autocratic takeover of the US by Trump, but Le Pen, Georgescu and Bolsanaro are three characters banned from running for office by their relevant authorities most recently. All suspected of and convicted of various crimes by their courts, all right-wingers. This to my mind should not be the case. Anti-H block ran imprisoned candidates in Ireland in 1981.
Tommy Robinson is in prison for a peculiarly long time. The Germans are close to banning the AfD. Trump came within 2cm of being shot dead (and that's when they weren't using lawfare against him). Orban is being atacked by the EU. And so on and so forth. Now, you can justify each of these cases individually, you can argue Trump's almost-killer was a loner (unlikely, to my mind, but whatever) - the point is there certainly appears to be a pattern of dubious leftwing-Establishment action against the radical/pooulist right; the law is being bent to prevent them reaching power, and maybe bullets too
Perhaps it is justified? Several PBers have openly admitted disappointment that Trump wasn't killed, as they see his death as morally preferable to his being in power
Either way, we should view this for what it is. Democracy is in brisk retreat (I believe it is doomed) and the two sides are amorally using the law against each other, and soon they will be using violence
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon was jailed in late October for 18 months for contempt of court. Even if he serves 40% of his sentence (and I doubt he will get away so quickly) he would be in jail for 7.5 months which is a mid May release at the very earliest
ON topic, can anyone think of some seriously horrible drinks?
I am compiling a list, for a project, of the world's worst beverages. They don't have to be alcoholic. eg a friend has just told me of "Franz Josef Bitter Water" which is apparently the world's most disgusting water
ON topic, can anyone think of some seriously horrible drinks?
I am compiling a list, for a project, of the world's worst beverages. They don't have to be alcoholic. eg a friend has just told me of "Franz Josef Bitter Water" which is apparently the world's most disgusting water
The header is about an autocratic takeover of the US by Trump, but Le Pen, Georgescu and Bolsanaro are three characters banned from running for office by their relevant authorities most recently. All suspected of and convicted of various crimes by their courts, all right-wingers. This to my mind should not be the case. Anti-H block ran imprisoned candidates in Ireland in 1981.
Tommy Robinson is in prison for a peculiarly long time. The Germans are close to banning the AfD. Trump came within 2cm of being shot dead (and that's when they weren't using lawfare against him). Orban is being attacked by the EU. And so on and so forth. Now, you can justify each of these cases individually, you can argue Trump's almost-killer was a loner (unlikely, to my mind, but whatever) - the point is there certainly appears to be a pattern of dubious leftwing-Establishment action against the radical/pooulist right; the law is being bent to prevent them reaching power, and maybe bullets too..
There is zero evidence that the "dubious leftwing establishment" had anything to do with the Trump assassination attempt.
And EU action against Orban is largely based on the fact that he's in breach of treaty obligations.
There will be no AfD ban; Germany is further away from that than it was last year. The issue arose because they floated a policy of deporting German citizens of overseas origin.
The header is about an autocratic takeover of the US by Trump, but Le Pen, Georgescu and Bolsanaro are three characters banned from running for office by their relevant authorities most recently. All suspected of and convicted of various crimes by their courts, all right-wingers. This to my mind should not be the case. Anti-H block ran imprisoned candidates in Ireland in 1981.
Tommy Robinson is in prison for a peculiarly long time. The Germans are close to banning the AfD. Trump came within 2cm of being shot dead (and that's when they weren't using lawfare against him). Orban is being atacked by the EU. And so on and so forth. Now, you can justify each of these cases individually, you can argue Trump's almost-killer was a loner (unlikely, to my mind, but whatever) - the point is there certainly appears to be a pattern of dubious leftwing-Establishment action against the radical/pooulist right; the law is being bent to prevent them reaching power, and maybe bullets too
Perhaps it is justified? Several PBers have openly admitted disappointment that Trump wasn't killed, as they see his death as morally preferable to his being in power
Either way, we should view this for what it is. Democracy is in brisk retreat (I believe it is doomed) and the two sides are amorally using the law against each other, and soon they will be using violence
It's one take. Alternately: 1. SYL knew what the law was, choose to break it publicly, received the sentence set out by law 2. AfD aren't banned, just had a great election result but like any Germans have to obey the law 3. Trump's shooters are always republicans... 4. Orban is in breech of EU rules which he is choosing to ignore 5. You missed out the case of the Romanian guy whose campaign was funded by Russia and thus banned
Whilst I take the point about lawfare being bad, it almost always isn't "lawfare", its just "law" which the various right wing politicians want to ignore because its inconvenient. Someone mentioned Phil "Whoops" Woolas earlier, a perfect example of two things. That the law isn't politically biased as you claim, and that people dislike being told how to vote as you are implying is the aim of the left.
ON topic, can anyone think of some seriously horrible drinks?
I am compiling a list, for a project, of the world's worst beverages. They don't have to be alcoholic. eg a friend has just told me of "Franz Josef Bitter Water" which is apparently the world's most disgusting water
Oyster Bay Sauvignon blanc. Makes battery acid seem a good option.
The header is about an autocratic takeover of the US by Trump, but Le Pen, Georgescu and Bolsanaro are three characters banned from running for office by their relevant authorities most recently. All suspected of and convicted of various crimes by their courts, all right-wingers. This to my mind should not be the case. Anti-H block ran imprisoned candidates in Ireland in 1981.
Tommy Robinson is in prison for a peculiarly long time. The Germans are close to banning the AfD. Trump came within 2cm of being shot dead (and that's when they weren't using lawfare against him). Orban is being atacked by the EU. And so on and so forth. Now, you can justify each of these cases individually, you can argue Trump's almost-killer was a loner (unlikely, to my mind, but whatever) - the point is there certainly appears to be a pattern of dubious leftwing-Establishment action against the radical/pooulist right; the law is being bent to prevent them reaching power, and maybe bullets too
Perhaps it is justified? Several PBers have openly admitted disappointment that Trump wasn't killed, as they see his death as morally preferable to his being in power
Either way, we should view this for what it is. Democracy is in brisk retreat (I believe it is doomed) and the two sides are amorally using the law against each other, and soon they will be using violence
Out of interest. Did you think the right-wing establishment was dooming democracy when...
JFK was assassinated. Maggie prevented Republican prisoners from standing for parliament. Arthur Scargill was arrested. Boris Johnson tried to impeach Tony Blair.
I don't think there is any comparison to the situation now, when politics in the West is far more radicalised, dangerous and volatile. eg if PB had existed in 1963 I doubt we'd have had PBers morally justifying the murder of JFK, as we saw with Trump
For the purposes of clarity, this is a two sides thing. The radical right can and will, when they reach power, be equally aggressive against the Left (as we see with Trump right now)
Hence my belief that democracy is fading away, perhaps for good
ON topic, can anyone think of some seriously horrible drinks?
I am compiling a list, for a project, of the world's worst beverages. They don't have to be alcoholic. eg a friend has just told me of "Franz Josef Bitter Water" which is apparently the world's most disgusting water
ON topic, can anyone think of some seriously horrible drinks?
I am compiling a list, for a project, of the world's worst beverages. They don't have to be alcoholic. eg a friend has just told me of "Franz Josef Bitter Water" which is apparently the world's most disgusting water
ON topic, can anyone think of some seriously horrible drinks?
I am compiling a list, for a project, of the world's worst beverages. They don't have to be alcoholic. eg a friend has just told me of "Franz Josef Bitter Water" which is apparently the world's most disgusting water
ON topic, can anyone think of some seriously horrible drinks?
I am compiling a list, for a project, of the world's worst beverages. They don't have to be alcoholic. eg a friend has just told me of "Franz Josef Bitter Water" which is apparently the world's most disgusting water
Advocaat.
I find it mildly unlikeable rather than hideous
You need to have it in Belgium (Flanders specifically). It's much thicker and more like a boozy custard. You'll often get a little pot of it if you order coffee in a bar during the winter. Good ones are sold in mason jars
Comments
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died, the Vice President-elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President-elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President-elect nor a Vice President-elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
That clearly and unambiguously allows for a scenario where a president is elected despite not being qualified. Now, there's an argument that that logically can only apply where a president-elect will qualify at some point (eg if elected at age 33), but it's not a slam-dunk: it's also possible to read it as written, that Electoral Votes for *any* candidate are valid, whether qualified or not (or that it's for Congress to determine), and hence such a candidate should not be disqualified from ballot access solely on those grounds. It is, of course, possible to argue that a candidate disqualified by the 22nd could nonetheless become qualified if the Constitution is subsequently amended.
The SCOTUS does have a long and not-very-distinguished history of "using transparently dodgy sophistry". I certainly wouldn't rely on this current incarnation of eschewing such methods.
I was on a jury trial once, in a murder case. We were shown various lines of evidence, including (grainy) CCTV footage of the accused or someone very similar looking going towards where the murder was convicted and, shortly after, running away from the scene. That’s circumstantial evidence: there was no video of the murder. We were asked how likely was that. How likely was it that someone very similar looking and dressed the same would’ve have been in the recording? How likely was it that the accused was the man in the footage? How likely was it, if he was the man in the footage, that he had committed the murder?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cwyewv8xdp7t?post=asset:14def5ea-0199-4be1-bc85-752c898ca33e#post
I have no idea if she is guilty or not, or if even babies were murdered or harmed or not. I didn't sit through the trial. I suspect there will be an appeal/re-trial at some point. I have no idea how that will go.
I am very conscious that previous miscarriages of justice have happened, so any asserting with supreme confidence that she is guilty (other than in the legally correct form - i.e. she was found guilty in court) is, in my opinion, probably slightly too confident in the infallability of our legal system.
IIRC… The prosecution focused on unexpected deaths. Their expert witness determined which were unexpected deaths before looking at which Letby was on shift for. The defence did not question this bit of the analysis, I think. Everyone accepted that some deaths were expected. They were not “similar occurrences”.
That said, I don’t think the number of expected deaths was as high as the five you suggest.
Chance or preference prevented third-term presidencies before FDR but not any widespread sense that such candidatures were morally illegitimate.
If an elected official is found guilty of embezzlement, what should happen to them?
They've only done what anyone normal would.
Justice à deux vitesses (ta Google translate).
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catégorie:Personnalité_politique_condamnée_à_une_peine_d'inéligibilité_en_France
Pulled me back towards the LibDems.
Michel Barnier second favourite.
Bardella is only 29.
I do not think democracy will in fact die- it has been written off many times- but I do reserve particular wrath for someone who actively wants it to die and supports people who are trying to kill it.
Being guilty of violating the Representation of the People Act 1983 is the main one that bars you, see Phil Woolas.
So I reckon Le Pen would be barred in the UK as well.
She has the eyes of Caligula and the mouth of Marilyn Monroe.
The coalition government of 2010 cancelled that loan guarantee and there was no chance whatsoever of Westinghouse starting to build in this country.
Nick Clegg was a Sheffield MP. He must’ve known the costs nationally and locally to us and our industry and yet he still accepted that as part of the coalition agreement.
Sometimes it’s very hard not to despise people and politics.
If she somehow manages to overturn it, she's now a shoe in. They never learn.
After all Farage / Labour and others have been doing this for years
Luis Alegre was still brandishing a red card as he aimed his his right boot as the jaw of the man invading the pitch amid angry on-field protests near Lima.
Alegre’s martial arts-style reaction was sparked by apparent threats of violence as he appeared to attempt to send off a member of the Magdalena CEDEC bench.
The confrontation erupted in the 82nd minute of Sport Huaquilla’s Copa Peru match against Magdalena CEDEC in Ancash, north of the the Peruvian capital.
Alegre hit out as the man ran towards him from the away team’s bench with the apparent intention of assaulting him with a plastic bottle in his hand.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2025/03/31/referee-peru-karate-kick-coach-in-face-luis-alegre/
But willfully smearing shit all over your own prison cell? UGH!
Against the sentence, at the very least.
Overturning the verdict would likely be a tough ask, as she was bang to rights.
'Je suis Marine,' Hungarian prime minister Orbán says
Jacque chirac got 2 years suspended
Cut the education budget
Schools can't cope
Statutory requirements fall onto councils who aren't given the cash
Councils fail
Meanwhile our kids have to suffer crap educational experiences because supposedly we can't afford to fund it
You can cut the service, you can't cut the need for the service. Mopping up the mess always costs more.
Why are governments so stupid?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/mar/30/councils-england-insolvency-risk-send-costs
Perhaps it is justified? Several PBers have openly admitted disappointment that Trump wasn't killed, as they see his death as morally preferable to his being in power
Either way, we should view this for what it is. Democracy is in brisk retreat (I believe it is doomed) and the two sides are amorally using the law against each other, and soon they will be using violence
Emile Chabal
@emile-chabal.bsky.social
Follow
Some observations about the Marine Le Pen verdict:
1) WOW. They really went for it: prison term (w/electronic tag) and 5 years of ineligibility. That's almost exactly what the prosecutors asked for, so she's seriously guilty.
2) Will this halt the progress of the far-right in France? No. But... 1/
Emile Chabal @emile-chabal.bsky.social
·
15m
...it's a huge embarrassment and a serious setback, electorally, too. The FN/RN is a Le Pen fiefdom. If it's decapitated, it'll unleash serious tensions.
3) Party is being fined 1 million EUR. This is also a big deal. Potentially guts the party's finances. Serious knock-on effects... 2/
https://bsky.app/profile/emile-chabal.bsky.social/post/3lloagrnv4226
From our footwear expert.
Is that the case here? French courts have repeatedly prosecuted politicians of all sides on corruption charges. Should the far right be exempted on the basis it will “further encourage the far right”?
So of course has a foreign court: it was New York that did for the not-far-right Dominique Strauss Kahn.
https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=395324
South Korea is expected to face pressure from the U.S. government to allow American troops stationed in the country to be deployed in the event of a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, analysts said Monday, following an alleged secret Pentagon memo that describes "deterring China's seizure of Taiwan" as its focus.
This contentious idea would shift the primary mission of the 28,500 U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) troops from deterring North Korean threats to countering China — a key element of the Donald Trump administration's foreign policy. For Seoul, this could create a security vacuum and complicate its relations with Beijing...
..The secret document, allegedly signed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, was reportedly distributed within the department in mid-March.
The document describes China as the department's "sole pacing threat," and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan — while simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland — as the Pentagon's sole pacing scenario. It further states that the Pentagon will pressure allies in Europe, the Middle East and East Asia to increase their responsibility in deterring threats from Russia, North Korea and Iran...
I am compiling a list, for a project, of the world's worst beverages. They don't have to be alcoholic. eg a friend has just told me of "Franz Josef Bitter Water" which is apparently the world's most disgusting water
- Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
JFK was assassinated.
Maggie prevented Republican prisoners from standing for parliament.
Arthur Scargill was arrested.
Boris Johnson tried to impeach Tony Blair.
And EU action against Orban is largely based on the fact that he's in breach of treaty obligations.
There will be no AfD ban; Germany is further away from that than it was last year. The issue arose because they floated a policy of deporting German citizens of overseas origin.
1. SYL knew what the law was, choose to break it publicly, received the sentence set out by law
2. AfD aren't banned, just had a great election result but like any Germans have to obey the law
3. Trump's shooters are always republicans...
4. Orban is in breech of EU rules which he is choosing to ignore
5. You missed out the case of the Romanian guy whose campaign was funded by Russia and thus banned
Whilst I take the point about lawfare being bad, it almost always isn't "lawfare", its just "law" which the various right wing politicians want to ignore because its inconvenient. Someone mentioned Phil "Whoops" Woolas earlier, a perfect example of two things. That the law isn't politically biased as you claim, and that people dislike being told how to vote as you are implying is the aim of the left.
For the purposes of clarity, this is a two sides thing. The radical right can and will, when they reach power, be equally aggressive against the Left (as we see with Trump right now)
Hence my belief that democracy is fading away, perhaps for good