Talking of weird decision this government have made....I only recently found out they cut the funding provided to universities to help put on courses which are very expensive to run i.e. the ones a high tech knowledge economy needs e.g. Chemistry, Medicine, etc, and also cut the overall capital funding pot.
Good job universities have loads of spare money and not on the verge of bankruptcy due to Nigerian economy blowing up.....
How is Starmer getting himself in just a muddle over defence spending and the commitment is for 10 years time. In reality, no commitment ever survives two terms in government without adjustment, who knows how the economy will go over the course of a decade, so he has nothing to lose by saving they are committed to it and move on.
He simply cannot commit to 3% without making choices that are alien to him
However, without it the review is just words and you can be certain it will lack credibility
Any Starmer pronouncement: "you can be certain it will lack credibility".
The problem with visas for minimum wage carers is, especially when they bring many economically inactive dependents with them, they do not pay their way. They are a burden on the economy. Migration central expects the dependents in the Boriswave, including carers, to cost £35 billion by 2028
The problem with visas for minimum wage carers is that the system became the sale of visas (a crime) for jobs that didn't actually exist.
Ripping off people from the developing world at £15K at time. So you are taking their saving and probably all the savings of their family. Nice.
It also had the slight flaw that nearly no-one on such visas ended up working in care.
So apart from it being a way for criminals to rip off poor people, it didn't work.
Indeed. Many stories like these. It is really hard, irrespective of one’s feelings about the Boriswave, not to feel sorry for these people and someone should be held to account for this. No one will.
If Lucy Connolly had prefaced her tweet with “I wouldn’t care if someone…” rather than ended it with “…for all I care” would that have made any difference
If you support, in general, exemplary sentences, then Lucy Connolly got what she deserved. If not, then it is another example of 2-tier justice because that is, almost by definition, what exemplary sentencing means. But there's a lot of people who want to free Connolly but were quite happy to see young people locked up for stealing water a decade ago.
The difference is that Connolly did nothing - was not personally and physically involved. And her tweet was deleted within 3 hours
The water stealers were directly involved in riots. Albeit simply stealing water
She incited. By way of comparison, in a contract killing the initiator is not personally and physically involved in the shooting. They charcteristically are treated by the courts as being even more culpable than the physical killer.
Inciters are often quite bright. Actors in riots are often quite dim.
Having said all of that, the sentence was a bit steep. But incitemenmt to kill should be taken very seriously.
What she tweeted wasn’t a rallying call though was it? She wasn’t instructing people to do something, more saying she wouldn’t care if it happened, and as she is not a person of any influence, it shouldn’t be thought to carry any weight. Jo Brand saying it was a shame Farage never got battery acid flung at him seems the same to me. You could interpret it as a “nice place you’ve got here, shame if anything happened to it” type of threat/encouragement or think of it as a joke/letting off steam. Either way 2 1/2 years in prison for it insane
I very much like Sumption and I don't think he can be accused of being a lily-livered lefty. The size of the sentence I imagine followed sentencing guidelines.
I like Sumption as well, but don’t subscribe to The Telegraph so can’t read that
Her conviction (she was prosecuted under public order laws) was justified because it was aggravated incitement to violence.
She also pleaded guilty.
Plus she took post down quickly. But in that time it had been seen hundreds of thousands of times and hence was not a sufficient mitigating factor.
Also worth remembering, even if not directly linked, some people did actually set fire to migrant hotels.
Although I feel her sentence is excessive she pleaded guilty and, quite frankly, deserves to be punished.
I must admit I don’t get people seeing her as a free speech martyr or political prisoner. She did a foolish thing in a moment and is now paying the price.
Yes. And a good general lesson, in particular for drivers/road rage. A moment of madness can result in life-changing consequences.
How is Starmer getting himself in just a muddle over defence spending and the commitment is for 10 years time. In reality, no commitment ever survives two terms in government without adjustment, who knows how the economy will go over the course of a decade, so he has nothing to lose by saving they are committed to it and move on.
He simply cannot commit to 3% without making choices that are alien to him
However, without it the review is just words and you can be certain it will lack credibility
I am not sure you can write that first paragraph with a straight face when this government have been the most heartless in history, cutting, foreign aid to the neediest nations, WFP payments for very poor pensioners and removing PIP payments from the poorliest people in the country
LibDem saying 2.5% and 3% in 2034 is not enough and not swift enough.
There are plenty of areas to reduce or cut but your comment confirms in many ways how the left will not let him do it
1. Which areas do you think should be cut? Remember that you are looking for spending cuts that Jeremy Hunt, Rishi Sunak and Phil Hammond (and all the others) didn't think they could achieve.
2. Are you suggesting the problem is Starmer or the left?
As for sentencing, thanks @williamglenn for the link - it was calculated as follows, and includes aggravating and mitigating circumstances:
"24. The minimum sentence after a trial would have been three and a half years imprisonment. 25. You pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management hearing and you are therefore entitled to a reduction in that sentence of twenty five percent. 26. The sentence on count 1 therefore is one of 31 months imprisonment. You will serve forty percent of that sentence."
If Lucy Connolly had prefaced her tweet with “I wouldn’t care if someone…” rather than ended it with “…for all I care” would that have made any difference
If you support, in general, exemplary sentences, then Lucy Connolly got what she deserved. If not, then it is another example of 2-tier justice because that is, almost by definition, what exemplary sentencing means. But there's a lot of people who want to free Connolly but were quite happy to see young people locked up for stealing water a decade ago.
The difference is that Connolly did nothing - was not personally and physically involved. And her tweet was deleted within 3 hours
The water stealers were directly involved in riots. Albeit simply stealing water
She incited. By way of comparison, in a contract killing the initiator is not personally and physically involved in the shooting. They charcteristically are treated by the courts as being even more culpable than the physical killer.
Inciters are often quite bright. Actors in riots are often quite dim.
Having said all of that, the sentence was a bit steep. But incitemenmt to kill should be taken very seriously.
What she tweeted wasn’t a rallying call though was it? She wasn’t instructing people to do something, more saying she wouldn’t care if it happened, and as she is not a person of any influence, it shouldn’t be thought to carry any weight. Jo Brand saying it was a shame Farage never got battery acid flung at him seems the same to me. You could interpret it as a “nice place you’ve got here, shame if anything happened to it” type of threat/encouragement or think of it as a joke/letting off steam. Either way 2 1/2 years in prison for it insane
The Labour councillor who told people to slit throats is still out on bail
Agree on the whole. Sentence a bit steep. And agree that the system seems to favour some repugnant statements and incitements and over others.
But the point about freedom of speech/opinion is that it is the alternative to violence, not a vehicle for encouraging it.
Sentence seems steep - but more than that, denying her bail when she'd already retracted the tweet seemed pretty shoddy.
Everyone knows that tweets are not retractable as they get retweeted etc.
Starmer about to announce his defence review from Glasgow
Farage to make a speech in Aberdeen half an hour later
The media's cup overflows
'We are cutting away from the PM to go LIVE to Nigel Farage'
Is there any indication as to why Farage is starting his campaigning for the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by election in Aberdeen (140 miles away) of all places? He should at least be putting his Royal Mile (40 miles away) befouled underwear moment behind him.
Larkhall should align with Farage on his anti-Green policies
Talking of weird decision this government have made....I only recently found out they cut the funding provided to universities to help put on courses which are very expensive to run i.e. the ones a high tech knowledge economy needs e.g. Chemistry, Medicine, etc, and also cut the overall capital funding pot.
Makes perfect sense - cut the budget in ways voters won't notice before the next election.
A friend who did an Art History PhD at Oxford (full overseas fees) commented that it was the most expensive library card on earth. Aside from an hour or 2 a week with Martin Kemp, that's all he got, really.
Why do you think it's far more talk about funding apprenticeships, than actuality - often they cost far, far more than many degrees to fund.
If Lucy Connolly had prefaced her tweet with “I wouldn’t care if someone…” rather than ended it with “…for all I care” would that have made any difference
If you support, in general, exemplary sentences, then Lucy Connolly got what she deserved. If not, then it is another example of 2-tier justice because that is, almost by definition, what exemplary sentencing means. But there's a lot of people who want to free Connolly but were quite happy to see young people locked up for stealing water a decade ago.
The difference is that Connolly did nothing - was not personally and physically involved. And her tweet was deleted within 3 hours
The water stealers were directly involved in riots. Albeit simply stealing water
She incited. By way of comparison, in a contract killing the initiator is not personally and physically involved in the shooting. They charcteristically are treated by the courts as being even more culpable than the physical killer.
Inciters are often quite bright. Actors in riots are often quite dim.
Having said all of that, the sentence was a bit steep. But incitemenmt to kill should be taken very seriously.
What she tweeted wasn’t a rallying call though was it? She wasn’t instructing people to do something, more saying she wouldn’t care if it happened, and as she is not a person of any influence, it shouldn’t be thought to carry any weight. Jo Brand saying it was a shame Farage never got battery acid flung at him seems the same to me. You could interpret it as a “nice place you’ve got here, shame if anything happened to it” type of threat/encouragement or think of it as a joke/letting off steam. Either way 2 1/2 years in prison for it insane
The Labour councillor who told people to slit throats is still out on bail
Agree on the whole. Sentence a bit steep. And agree that the system seems to favour some repugnant statements and incitements and over others.
But the point about freedom of speech/opinion is that it is the alternative to violence, not a vehicle for encouraging it.
Sentence seems steep - but more than that, denying her bail when she'd already retracted the tweet seemed pretty shoddy.
Everyone knows that tweets are not retractable as they get retweeted etc.
Right, but she was no further danger to the public. So bail (perhaps with a requirement to avoid social media until the trial) would have been reasonable. If she had been unrepentant, possibly not.
How is Starmer getting himself in just a muddle over defence spending and the commitment is for 10 years time. In reality, no commitment ever survives two terms in government without adjustment, who knows how the economy will go over the course of a decade, so he has nothing to lose by saving they are committed to it and move on.
He simply cannot commit to 3% without making choices that are alien to him
However, without it the review is just words and you can be certain it will lack credibility
I am not sure you can write that first paragraph with a straight face when this government have been the most heartless in history, cutting, foreign aid to the neediest nations, WFP payments for very poor pensioners and removing PIP payments from the poorliest people in the country
LibDem saying 2.5% and 3% in 2034 is not enough and not swift enough.
There are plenty of areas to reduce or cut but your comment confirms in many ways how the left will not let him do it
In that case we need the LibDems to run Government now, they already have a fantastic fully costed defence programme. The LD's Mike Martin is saying that we will be involved in a full scale war with Russia within the next decade and Starmer has facilitated this by dropping the defence ball over the last and next decade.
If Lucy Connolly had prefaced her tweet with “I wouldn’t care if someone…” rather than ended it with “…for all I care” would that have made any difference
If you support, in general, exemplary sentences, then Lucy Connolly got what she deserved. If not, then it is another example of 2-tier justice because that is, almost by definition, what exemplary sentencing means. But there's a lot of people who want to free Connolly but were quite happy to see young people locked up for stealing water a decade ago.
The difference is that Connolly did nothing - was not personally and physically involved. And her tweet was deleted within 3 hours
The water stealers were directly involved in riots. Albeit simply stealing water
She incited. By way of comparison, in a contract killing the initiator is not personally and physically involved in the shooting. They charcteristically are treated by the courts as being even more culpable than the physical killer.
Inciters are often quite bright. Actors in riots are often quite dim.
Having said all of that, the sentence was a bit steep. But incitemenmt to kill should be taken very seriously.
What she tweeted wasn’t a rallying call though was it? She wasn’t instructing people to do something, more saying she wouldn’t care if it happened, and as she is not a person of any influence, it shouldn’t be thought to carry any weight. Jo Brand saying it was a shame Farage never got battery acid flung at him seems the same to me. You could interpret it as a “nice place you’ve got here, shame if anything happened to it” type of threat/encouragement or think of it as a joke/letting off steam. Either way 2 1/2 years in prison for it insane
I very much like Sumption and I don't think he can be accused of being a lily-livered lefty. The size of the sentence I imagine followed sentencing guidelines.
I like Sumption as well, but don’t subscribe to The Telegraph so can’t read that
Her conviction (she was prosecuted under public order laws) was justified because it was aggravated incitement to violence.
She also pleaded guilty.
Plus she took post down quickly. But in that time it had been seen hundreds of thousands of times and hence was not a sufficient mitigating factor.
There is an interesting difference of opinion on whether social media posts are equivalent to those said in person at a rally - "mean tweets". I think they are worse given the potential audience of millions, but I don't think my parents generation feel that way at all.
Perhaps there is a need for a public information campaign.
The problem with visas for minimum wage carers is, especially when they bring many economically inactive dependents with them, they do not pay their way. They are a burden on the economy. Migration central expects the dependents in the Boriswave, including carers, to cost £35 billion by 2028
The problem with visas for minimum wage carers is that the system became the sale of visas (a crime) for jobs that didn't actually exist.
Ripping off people from the developing world at £15K at time. So you are taking their saving and probably all the savings of their family. Nice.
It also had the slight flaw that nearly no-one on such visas ended up working in care.
So apart from it being a way for criminals to rip off poor people, it didn't work.
Indeed. Many stories like these. It is really hard, irrespective of one’s feelings about the Boriswave, not to feel sorry for these people and someone should be held to account for this. No one will.
Talking of weird decision this government have made....I only recently found out they cut the funding provided to universities to help put on courses which are very expensive to run i.e. the ones a high tech knowledge economy needs e.g. Chemistry, Medicine, etc, and also cut the overall capital funding pot.
Good job universities have loads of spare money and not on the verge of bankruptcy due to Nigerian economy blowing up.....
Indeed, we saw just last week that Bradford wants to close chemistry. On the one hand, we talk of Britain being a science and research hub, and of attracting researchers thrown out of America, yet we are seemingly unwilling to pay for it.
Talking of weird decision this government have made....I only recently found out they cut the funding provided to universities to help put on courses which are very expensive to run i.e. the ones a high tech knowledge economy needs e.g. Chemistry, Medicine, etc, and also cut the overall capital funding pot.
Makes perfect sense - cut the budget in ways voters won't notice before the next election.
A friend who did an Art History PhD at Oxford (full overseas fees) commented that it was the most expensive library card on earth. Aside from an hour or 2 a week with Martin Kemp, that's all he got, really.
Why do you think it's far more talk about funding apprenticeships, than actuality - often they cost far, far more than many degrees to fund.
But the cuts are tiny in the grand scheme of things. Its like the cuts to support for adopted kids and not willing to give AstraZenca a few million quid for a R&D centre. Its all rounding error in terms of overall spending, so you aren't really making any real progress towards making your golden rule. The U-Turn in WFA will be many many times the cost of these penny pinching measures.
As for sentencing, thanks @williamglenn for the link - it was calculated as follows, and includes aggravating and mitigating circumstances:
"24. The minimum sentence after a trial would have been three and a half years imprisonment. 25. You pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management hearing and you are therefore entitled to a reduction in that sentence of twenty five percent. 26. The sentence on count 1 therefore is one of 31 months imprisonment. You will serve forty percent of that sentence."
So she will be out pretty quickly.
I do wonder what would have happened if she went ‘not guilty’ and tried to justify/explain it.
Starmer about to announce his defence review from Glasgow
Farage to make a speech in Aberdeen half an hour later
The media's cup overflows
'We are cutting away from the PM to go LIVE to Nigel Farage'
Is there any indication as to why Farage is starting his campaigning for the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by election in Aberdeen (140 miles away) of all places? He should at least be putting his Royal Mile (40 miles away) befouled underwear moment behind him.
Larkhall should align with Farage on his anti-Green policies
How is Starmer getting himself in just a muddle over defence spending and the commitment is for 10 years time. In reality, no commitment ever survives two terms in government without adjustment, who knows how the economy will go over the course of a decade, so he has nothing to lose by saving they are committed to it and move on.
He simply cannot commit to 3% without making choices that are alien to him
However, without it the review is just words and you can be certain it will lack credibility
The choice alien to him is to raise taxes. It is as simple as that.
As for sentencing, thanks @williamglenn for the link - it was calculated as follows, and includes aggravating and mitigating circumstances:
"24. The minimum sentence after a trial would have been three and a half years imprisonment. 25. You pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management hearing and you are therefore entitled to a reduction in that sentence of twenty five percent. 26. The sentence on count 1 therefore is one of 31 months imprisonment. You will serve forty percent of that sentence."
As I kept pointing out, the sentencing guidelines are quite restrictive. Indeed, when they were introduced, many judges and magistrates complained that they tied their hands.
In all the written judgements you see, these days, the points are about evaluating a particular criteria in the sentencing guidelines. So any appeal would go through, checking off the whether all of the guidelines were applied.
Starmer about to announce his defence review from Glasgow
Farage to make a speech in Aberdeen half an hour later
The media's cup overflows
'We are cutting away from the PM to go LIVE to Nigel Farage'
Is there any indication as to why Farage is starting his campaigning for the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by election in Aberdeen (140 miles away) of all places? He should at least be putting his Royal Mile (40 miles away) befouled underwear moment behind him.
Larkhall should align with Farage on his anti-Green policies
How is Starmer getting himself in just a muddle over defence spending and the commitment is for 10 years time. In reality, no commitment ever survives two terms in government without adjustment, who knows how the economy will go over the course of a decade, so he has nothing to lose by saving they are committed to it and move on.
He simply cannot commit to 3% without making choices that are alien to him
However, without it the review is just words and you can be certain it will lack credibility
The choice alien to him is to raise taxes. It is as simple as that.
Talking of weird decision this government have made....I only recently found out they cut the funding provided to universities to help put on courses which are very expensive to run i.e. the ones a high tech knowledge economy needs e.g. Chemistry, Medicine, etc, and also cut the overall capital funding pot.
Good job universities have loads of spare money and not on the verge of bankruptcy due to Nigerian economy blowing up.....
Indeed, we saw just last week that Bradford wants to close chemistry. On the one hand, we talk of Britain being a science and research hub, and of attracting researchers thrown out of America, yet we are seemingly unwilling to pay for it.
So far cancelled the supercomputer that would have be only the 3rd in the World (others being US and China), torpedoed AstraZenca R&D centre....but but but something something DeepMind....anything else....DeepMind....oh and a dodgy company who promises billions in vaporware AI datacentres run on AMD GPUs (which even AMD can't get to work) despite having raised only a few million quid so far.
As for sentencing, thanks @williamglenn for the link - it was calculated as follows, and includes aggravating and mitigating circumstances:
"24. The minimum sentence after a trial would have been three and a half years imprisonment. 25. You pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management hearing and you are therefore entitled to a reduction in that sentence of twenty five percent. 26. The sentence on count 1 therefore is one of 31 months imprisonment. You will serve forty percent of that sentence."
So she will be out pretty quickly.
I do wonder what would have happened if she went ‘not guilty’ and tried to justify/explain it.
She would likely have been acquitted
Most of the Southport riot folk who went Not Guilty are getting acquitted. Juries are much more sympathetic than Two Tier Kier
Starmer about to announce his defence review from Glasgow
Farage to make a speech in Aberdeen half an hour later
The media's cup overflows
'We are cutting away from the PM to go LIVE to Nigel Farage'
Is there any indication as to why Farage is starting his campaigning for the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by election in Aberdeen (140 miles away) of all places? He should at least be putting his Royal Mile (40 miles away) befouled underwear moment behind him.
Larkhall should align with Farage on his anti-Green policies
Talking of weird decision this government have made....I only recently found out they cut the funding provided to universities to help put on courses which are very expensive to run i.e. the ones a high tech knowledge economy needs e.g. Chemistry, Medicine, etc, and also cut the overall capital funding pot.
Makes perfect sense - cut the budget in ways voters won't notice before the next election.
A friend who did an Art History PhD at Oxford (full overseas fees) commented that it was the most expensive library card on earth. Aside from an hour or 2 a week with Martin Kemp, that's all he got, really.
Why do you think it's far more talk about funding apprenticeships, than actuality - often they cost far, far more than many degrees to fund.
But the cuts are tiny in the grand scheme of things. Its like the cuts to support for adopted kids and not willing to give AstraZenca a few million quid for a R&D centre. Its all rounding error in terms of overall spending, so you aren't really making any real progress towards making your golden rule. The U-Turn in WFA will be many many times the cost of these penny pinching measures.
It's shades of all "government cuts NOW!" attempts. First they realise that all the big ticket items can't be cut because they are needed. Then they move down, until there are things small enough that they can be cut without too much pain. Which doesn't actually achieve much.
Reducing the cost of government is perfectly possible. It would take half a decade to start showing a results, though, as part of a structured program of continuous renewal and improvement to increase productivity. And might well require increased expenditure at the start.
Really short men have fewer lifetime sexual partners than taller men. Well I never
The amazing thing is the low number. The median for everyone is 7 in a lifetime.
7.
SEVEN
Not a typo
😶
I wonder what the breakdown by age is? I would naively presume oldies lower than that, children of the 80s probably a fair bit higher than the median.
In the noughties, there were seemingly limitless opportunities to get out and about with people looking to get their end away with the chain nightclubs and 18-30 holidays if that is what you wanted.
It certainly wasn't like that in the (late) 50's. Main reason was the fear/threat of pregnancy. People who weren't around then can have no idea of the liberating effect of easy and freely available contraception.
Really short men have fewer lifetime sexual partners than taller men. Well I never
The amazing thing is the low number. The median for everyone is 7 in a lifetime.
7.
SEVEN
Not a typo
😶
I wonder what the breakdown by age is? I would naively presume oldies lower than that, children of the 80s probably a fair bit higher than the median.
In the noughties, there were seemingly limitless opportunities to get out and about with people looking to get their end away with the chain nightclubs and 18-30 holidays if that is what you wanted.
It certainly wasn't like that in the (late) 50's. Main reason was the fear/threat of pregnancy. People who weren't around then can have no idea of the liberating effect of easy and freely available contraception.
That was my point. Both attitudes and opportunities changed.
How is Starmer getting himself in just a muddle over defence spending and the commitment is for 10 years time. In reality, no commitment ever survives two terms in government without adjustment, who knows how the economy will go over the course of a decade, so he has nothing to lose by saving they are committed to it and move on.
He simply cannot commit to 3% without making choices that are alien to him
However, without it the review is just words and you can be certain it will lack credibility
The choice alien to him is to raise taxes. It is as simple as that.
When as a nation we have no money and Russia are about to invade, that is a little bit of a handicap.
Nice review - thanks for the header. One opportunity Labour have I think is to say they will recognise Palestine as a state. Popular in the country and may go some way to repairing their very damaged relations with Muslim and Green voters.
Will David Lammy be the Arthur Balfour of the 21st Century?
Not auspicious, though I’m sure bumbling, Ill-considered incompetence sowing the seeds of future chaos are well within the powers of Lammy.
To be fair to Balfour he acknowledged it wouldn't work without a proper Palestine.
No Hitler/holocaust, no Israel, so we can blame Herr Hitler for the current mess.
Eh? the Balfour Declaration arose from the First World War so Israel would still be here. There is, however, a school of thought that much of the current animosity comes from years of Nazi propaganda in the Middle East where they were trying to stir up native revolutions against the British, so to that extent, it is Hitler's fault.
Look at the gap between the Balfour declaration and Israel being created.
Even Balfour didn't want the whole of Palestine to be converted into a home for Jewish people, he said that would lead to problems.
Which is what was reflected in the 1947 partition plan. A state each for arabs and jews.
One side accepted it, one rejected it and articulated that rejection with military force.
How would you react if Denmark decided to take up most of the UK and move in a few million Danes?
Er, they did. The English are Anglo-Danes.
What we can't do is to claim that Lower Saxony was promised to us by God, move back in and kick the Germans out
It is interesting that we see our history as through the lens of giving priority to particular groups; namely Celts but only in west British Isles/Angles and Saxons/Normans. But not Danes, Vikings, Scandinavians generally, Celts everywhere but the west, Jutes and Picts.
As for sentencing, thanks @williamglenn for the link - it was calculated as follows, and includes aggravating and mitigating circumstances:
"24. The minimum sentence after a trial would have been three and a half years imprisonment. 25. You pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management hearing and you are therefore entitled to a reduction in that sentence of twenty five percent. 26. The sentence on count 1 therefore is one of 31 months imprisonment. You will serve forty percent of that sentence."
So she will be out pretty quickly.
I do wonder what would have happened if she went ‘not guilty’ and tried to justify/explain it.
A 42 month sentence at the minimum by the looks of it.
Reality is I think she was in an awful position having done something that in other circumstances / times wouldn’t have blown up so would have been ignored or a quiet word said, attached to legal advice which may have been right except for the seriousness of the aggravating circumstances.
But as I’ve pointed out before in riot act situations exaggerated sentences are the default to ensure that those listening are discouraged from doing the same stupid mistakes later
As for sentencing, thanks @williamglenn for the link - it was calculated as follows, and includes aggravating and mitigating circumstances:
"24. The minimum sentence after a trial would have been three and a half years imprisonment. 25. You pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management hearing and you are therefore entitled to a reduction in that sentence of twenty five percent. 26. The sentence on count 1 therefore is one of 31 months imprisonment. You will serve forty percent of that sentence."
So she will be out pretty quickly.
I do wonder what would have happened if she went ‘not guilty’ and tried to justify/explain it.
She would likely have been acquitted
Most of the Southport riot folk who went Not Guilty are getting acquitted. Juries are much more sympathetic than Two Tier Kier
It is (the juries are) effectively saying you can just about tweet what you want because it doesn't count. Or is free speech.
Really short men have fewer lifetime sexual partners than taller men. Well I never
The amazing thing is the low number. The median for everyone is 7 in a lifetime.
7.
SEVEN
Not a typo
😶
I wonder what the breakdown by age is? I would naively presume oldies lower than that, children of the 80s probably a fair bit higher than the median.
In the noughties, there were seemingly limitless opportunities to get out and about with people looking to get their end away with the chain nightclubs and 18-30 holidays if that is what you wanted.
It certainly wasn't like that in the (late) 50's. Main reason was the fear/threat of pregnancy. People who weren't around then can have no idea of the liberating effect of easy and freely available contraception.
That was my point. Both attitudes and opportunities changed.
Sexual intercourse began In nineteen sixty-three (which was rather late for me) - Between the end of the Chatterley ban And the Beatles' first LP.
Up to then there'd only been A sort of bargaining, A wrangle for the ring, A shame that started at sixteen And spread to everything.
Talking of weird decision this government have made....I only recently found out they cut the funding provided to universities to help put on courses which are very expensive to run i.e. the ones a high tech knowledge economy needs e.g. Chemistry, Medicine, etc, and also cut the overall capital funding pot.
Good job universities have loads of spare money and not on the verge of bankruptcy due to Nigerian economy blowing up.....
Indeed, we saw just last week that Bradford wants to close chemistry. On the one hand, we talk of Britain being a science and research hub, and of attracting researchers thrown out of America, yet we are seemingly unwilling to pay for it.
Really short men have fewer lifetime sexual partners than taller men. Well I never
The amazing thing is the low number. The median for everyone is 7 in a lifetime.
7.
SEVEN
Not a typo
😶
I wonder what the breakdown by age is? I would naively presume oldies lower than that, children of the 80s probably a fair bit higher than the median.
In the noughties, there were seemingly limitless opportunities to get out and about with people looking to get their end away with the chain nightclubs and 18-30 holidays if that is what you wanted.
It certainly wasn't like that in the (late) 50's. Main reason was the fear/threat of pregnancy. People who weren't around then can have no idea of the liberating effect of easy and freely available contraception.
Sorry to disagree, but ... yes we can.
It's a matter of reading the social history, listening to the accounts of those who were there, and doing a bit of reflection.
if we can't understand different times, then we may as well sack all the historians as they will be wrong all the time as a matter of ontology.
Talking of weird decision this government have made....I only recently found out they cut the funding provided to universities to help put on courses which are very expensive to run i.e. the ones a high tech knowledge economy needs e.g. Chemistry, Medicine, etc, and also cut the overall capital funding pot.
Makes perfect sense - cut the budget in ways voters won't notice before the next election.
A friend who did an Art History PhD at Oxford (full overseas fees) commented that it was the most expensive library card on earth. Aside from an hour or 2 a week with Martin Kemp, that's all he got, really.
Why do you think it's far more talk about funding apprenticeships, than actuality - often they cost far, far more than many degrees to fund.
But the cuts are tiny in the grand scheme of things. Its like the cuts to support for adopted kids and not willing to give AstraZenca a few million quid for a R&D centre. Its all rounding error in terms of overall spending, so you aren't really making any real progress towards making your golden rule. The U-Turn in WFA will be many many times the cost of these penny pinching measures.
The maths is very simple. If we don't spend less on welfare, then we have to tax more.
Trying to avoid cutting welfare or increasing taxes measures that not only won't you solve the fiscal problem, you'll screw up everything else by searching for cuts in things like the criminal justice system.
The credit card is maxxed out, so that's not an alternative either. We can still borrow for genuine economically productive investment, but not Gordon Brown style 'investment'.
As for sentencing, thanks @williamglenn for the link - it was calculated as follows, and includes aggravating and mitigating circumstances:
"24. The minimum sentence after a trial would have been three and a half years imprisonment. 25. You pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management hearing and you are therefore entitled to a reduction in that sentence of twenty five percent. 26. The sentence on count 1 therefore is one of 31 months imprisonment. You will serve forty percent of that sentence."
So she will be out pretty quickly.
I do wonder what would have happened if she went ‘not guilty’ and tried to justify/explain it.
She would likely have been acquitted
Most of the Southport riot folk who went Not Guilty are getting acquitted. Juries are much more sympathetic than Two Tier Kier
The National @ScotNational · 7m BREAKING: A Scottish councillor has become the latest to defect from the Conservatives to Reform UK, Nigel Farage has confirmed in Aberdeen
The Reform UK leader also announced a Labour councillor would be defecting this afternoon
Starmer is noticeably stronger on the defence stuff than other matters of domestic policy. There is a lot I criticise him for, but I think he is doing a relatively good job here.
Deborah Haynes on Sky and other defence experts are highly critical of the lack of commitment to the 3% as being an ambition is simply not enough when it comes to spending on defence
Talking of weird decision this government have made....I only recently found out they cut the funding provided to universities to help put on courses which are very expensive to run i.e. the ones a high tech knowledge economy needs e.g. Chemistry, Medicine, etc, and also cut the overall capital funding pot.
Makes perfect sense - cut the budget in ways voters won't notice before the next election.
A friend who did an Art History PhD at Oxford (full overseas fees) commented that it was the most expensive library card on earth. Aside from an hour or 2 a week with Martin Kemp, that's all he got, really.
Why do you think it's far more talk about funding apprenticeships, than actuality - often they cost far, far more than many degrees to fund.
But the cuts are tiny in the grand scheme of things. Its like the cuts to support for adopted kids and not willing to give AstraZenca a few million quid for a R&D centre. Its all rounding error in terms of overall spending, so you aren't really making any real progress towards making your golden rule. The U-Turn in WFA will be many many times the cost of these penny pinching measures.
The maths is very simple. If we don't spend less on welfare, then we have to tax more.
Trying to avoid cutting welfare or increasing taxes measures that not only won't you solve the fiscal problem, you'll screw up everything else by searching for cuts in things like the criminal justice system.
The credit card is maxxed out, so that's not an alternative either. We can still borrow for genuine economically productive investment, but not Gordon Brown style 'investment'.
Everything else is a distraction.
I can't help feeling that the free money furlough scheme missed a trick by not recouping the cash through additional taxation to those who benefited, over a 20 or 25 year payback and from day 1.
If Lucy Connolly had prefaced her tweet with “I wouldn’t care if someone…” rather than ended it with “…for all I care” would that have made any difference
If you support, in general, exemplary sentences, then Lucy Connolly got what she deserved. If not, then it is another example of 2-tier justice because that is, almost by definition, what exemplary sentencing means. But there's a lot of people who want to free Connolly but were quite happy to see young people locked up for stealing water a decade ago.
The difference is that Connolly did nothing - was not personally and physically involved. And her tweet was deleted within 3 hours
The water stealers were directly involved in riots. Albeit simply stealing water
She incited. By way of comparison, in a contract killing the initiator is not personally and physically involved in the shooting. They charcteristically are treated by the courts as being even more culpable than the physical killer.
Inciters are often quite bright. Actors in riots are often quite dim.
Having said all of that, the sentence was a bit steep. But incitemenmt to kill should be taken very seriously.
What she tweeted wasn’t a rallying call though was it? She wasn’t instructing people to do something, more saying she wouldn’t care if it happened, and as she is not a person of any influence, it shouldn’t be thought to carry any weight. Jo Brand saying it was a shame Farage never got battery acid flung at him seems the same to me. You could interpret it as a “nice place you’ve got here, shame if anything happened to it” type of threat/encouragement or think of it as a joke/letting off steam. Either way 2 1/2 years in prison for it insane
I very much like Sumption and I don't think he can be accused of being a lily-livered lefty. The size of the sentence I imagine followed sentencing guidelines.
I like Sumption as well, but don’t subscribe to The Telegraph so can’t read that
Her conviction (she was prosecuted under public order laws) was justified because it was aggravated incitement to violence.
Starmer has form in being very heavy handed on this type of thing, for instance the ‘blow up the airport’ joke that he tried, against all advice, to get a man imprisoned for as DPP. Lord Hermer, cut from the same cloth as Sir Keir, and appointed to the Lords as AG when as Labour won last year, apparently decided not to intervene in the tweet case, whilst letting rapists & paedophiles serve unduly lenient sentences. He is also Sir Keir’s human shield for deflecting about stopping the boats
Really short men have fewer lifetime sexual partners than taller men. Well I never
The amazing thing is the low number. The median for everyone is 7 in a lifetime.
7.
SEVEN
Not a typo
😶
I wonder what the breakdown by age is? I would naively presume oldies lower than that, children of the 80s probably a fair bit higher than the median.
In the noughties, there were seemingly limitless opportunities to get out and about with people looking to get their end away with the chain nightclubs and 18-30 holidays if that is what you wanted.
It certainly wasn't like that in the (late) 50's. Main reason was the fear/threat of pregnancy. People who weren't around then can have no idea of the liberating effect of easy and freely available contraception.
Sorry to disagree, but ... yes we can.
It's a matter of reading the social history, listening to the accounts of those who were there, and doing a bit of reflection.
if we can't understand different times, then we may as well sack all the historians as they will be wrong all the time as a matter of ontology.
No idea without doing the reading etc. I'll happily accept that. A grandson, as part of his history degree, had to do something about the social changes in the 1960's. I asked him if he'd included the ending of National Service. He said he hadn't, much to my amazement. Without that ending we'd never have had the musical flowering that the 60's produced.
As for sentencing, thanks @williamglenn for the link - it was calculated as follows, and includes aggravating and mitigating circumstances:
"24. The minimum sentence after a trial would have been three and a half years imprisonment. 25. You pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management hearing and you are therefore entitled to a reduction in that sentence of twenty five percent. 26. The sentence on count 1 therefore is one of 31 months imprisonment. You will serve forty percent of that sentence."
So she will be out pretty quickly.
I do wonder what would have happened if she went ‘not guilty’ and tried to justify/explain it.
A 42 month sentence at the minimum by the looks of it.
Reality is I think she was in an awful position having done something that in other circumstances / times wouldn’t have blown up so would have been ignored or a quiet word said, attached to legal advice which may have been right except for the seriousness of the aggravating circumstances.
But as I’ve pointed out before in riot act situations exaggerated sentences are the default to ensure that those listening are discouraged from doing the same stupid mistakes later
Yep.
Wander in to Asda and steal a bottle of water on your way home from work = slapped wrist, sent your way by plod, if they are involved at all.
Enter Asda in the midst of a riot and steal a bottle of water as everyone around you causes mayhem = banged up most likely.
@GarethoftheVale2 A very interesting article, thank you. ISTM that the whole welfare state requires drastic overhaul. It was and is a wonderful thing to have a safety net for all, but the burden on younger people has grown far beyond what the Labour originators ever envisaged, I'm sure.
For example, without getting into any morality issues, there's a contradiction between widely available abortion on the NHS and a dwindling working age population paying for all the elderly.
Also between the increasing (edit) redundancy of so many without the skills to cope with technology and the universal franchise enabling non-productive people (of whom I am one) to vote themselves more benefits.
I'd like to think there's an academic body out there somewhere that's giving a lot of hard thought & research into how these circles can be squared, because it's plainly beyond any political party that wants to be elected.
Just drove out of Vianden and the route to my next Luxembourgeois destination takes me through a tiny slice of Germany
As soon as you cross the the border (marked by a tiny schenghen sign, huzzah for schenghen) it suddenly feels poorer. The roads are pot holed. The bus stops are grubby. Not the immaculacy of Luxembourg
Makes sense of course given the large discrepancy in gdp per capita, but still striking
The interesting thing about the Defence announcement is the LibDems being so strongly in favour of increasing defence spending at a greater rate*. Starmer will be under pressure from everywhere but his own far left and the greens.
*Partly clever positioning I am sure, but also a very natural consequence of being European focused these days.
Really short men have fewer lifetime sexual partners than taller men. Well I never
The amazing thing is the low number. The median for everyone is 7 in a lifetime.
7.
SEVEN
Not a typo
😶
I wonder what the breakdown by age is? I would naively presume oldies lower than that, children of the 80s probably a fair bit higher than the median.
In the noughties, there were seemingly limitless opportunities to get out and about with people looking to get their end away with the chain nightclubs and 18-30 holidays if that is what you wanted.
Oldies going up, apparently, owing to little blue pills and no fear of pregnacy.
Party leaders across the board have all seen a drop in net approval ratings since we last asked the public a fortnight ago. Kei Starmer’s ratings hit a low of -37% net approval, down 3 points. Badenoch sees a drop of 7 point, sitting at a -27% net approval. Both Nigel Farage and Ed Davey see a drop of 5 points (net approval of -11% and -4% respectively).
The interesting thing about the Defence announcement is the LibDems being so strongly in favour of increasing defence spending at a greater rate*. Starmer will be under pressure from everywhere but his own far left and the greens.
*Partly clever positioning I am sure, but also a very natural consequence of being European focused these days.
Memo to Starmer – add a page to your PMQs binder on what the LibDems actually did to defence spending when in government.
How is Starmer getting himself in just a muddle over defence spending and the commitment is for 10 years time. In reality, no commitment ever survives two terms in government without adjustment, who knows how the economy will go over the course of a decade, so he has nothing to lose by saving they are committed to it and move on.
He simply cannot commit to 3% without making choices that are alien to him
However, without it the review is just words and you can be certain it will lack credibility
The choice alien to him is to raise taxes. It is as simple as that.
When as a nation we have no money and Russia are about to invade, that is a little bit of a handicap.
The UK as a nation is now committed to the Nato target on defence spending and Russia would have to invade most of the rest of Nato and other European nations and cross the channel before they invaded us
The interesting thing about the Defence announcement is the LibDems being so strongly in favour of increasing defence spending at a greater rate*. Starmer will be under pressure from everywhere but his own far left and the greens.
*Partly clever positioning I am sure, but also a very natural consequence of being European focused these days.
Memo to Starmer – add a page to your PMQs binder on what the LibDems actually did to defence spending when in government.
That was then, before Russia invasion of Ukraine and Trump in the White House
It seems surreal that Starmer identifies the problem but is incapable of commiting to the spending
He said his first duty is to protect the nation then increase taxes to pay for it
The current £26m annual spending on DEI will be removed by Reform giving a £7b saving.
Explain the maths please.
In a similar vein
Although as the thread I stole that from points out if Reform explicit calls out the fact that the Government orders councils to provide xyz services but doesn’t then given the money in full to provide the service thst problem should be explicitly called out and shouldn’t be hidden away in the way it currently is
Sky reporting that both the Conservatives and Lib Dems are demanding 3% defence spending in this parliament
Remind me who was in Government until July last year.
Pre Trump, but try to deflect if you want.
Labour are nearing a year in office and simply have to find the 3% or be widely ridiculed
But post-Ukrainian invasion.
Besides, the government will be widely ridiculed whatever they do. Price of being in government.
(But yes, defence spending needs to increase, and it has to come from taxes. And those calling for higher defence spending will be the first to howl with rage if that happens.)
How is Starmer getting himself in just a muddle over defence spending and the commitment is for 10 years time. In reality, no commitment ever survives two terms in government without adjustment, who knows how the economy will go over the course of a decade, so he has nothing to lose by saving they are committed to it and move on.
He simply cannot commit to 3% without making choices that are alien to him
However, without it the review is just words and you can be certain it will lack credibility
The choice alien to him is to raise taxes. It is as simple as that.
When as a nation we have no money and Russia are about to invade, that is a little bit of a handicap.
The UK as a nation is now committed to the Nato target on defence spending and Russia would have to invade most of the rest of Nato and other European nations and cross the channel before they invaded us
Point of order
UK is not committed to the NATO target of defence spending which is moving towards 5% at their next meeting
Starmer 3% is an ambition by the end of the next parliament with 2.5% by 2027
Sky reporting that both the Conservatives and Lib Dems are demanding 3% defence spending in this parliament
Remind me who was in Government until July last year.
Pre Trump, but try to deflect if you want.
Labour are nearing a year in office and simply have to find the 3% or be widely ridiculed
The Ukraine war has been going on since 2022. Russian expansionism was far more concerning before they failed to take Kiev. What party (along with a little helper party) decimated defence spending since 2010?
As for sentencing, thanks @williamglenn for the link - it was calculated as follows, and includes aggravating and mitigating circumstances:
"24. The minimum sentence after a trial would have been three and a half years imprisonment. 25. You pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management hearing and you are therefore entitled to a reduction in that sentence of twenty five percent. 26. The sentence on count 1 therefore is one of 31 months imprisonment. You will serve forty percent of that sentence."
As I kept pointing out, the sentencing guidelines are quite restrictive. Indeed, when they were introduced, many judges and magistrates complained that they tied their hands.
In all the written judgements you see, these days, the points are about evaluating a particular criteria in the sentencing guidelines. So any appeal would go through, checking off the whether all of the guidelines were applied.
Indeed it would. Here is the Appeal Judgement, by a panel of 3 judges.
It also has a more detailed timeline, including tweets she made in the same niche one week before and afterwards.
In one way I'm baffled that anyone is still talking about this, other than for purely political reasons, as they don't like the same standards being applied to "their" people as were applied to those who were not "their" people in eg the London riots around 2011.
To me the comparison with "The Labour Councillor who is still out on bail" seems spurious; his alleged offence was not on the day of nationwide disorder (was it in October?), and he did not plead guilty, so there is an extended period before trial (initially set for Jan 2025, now Aug 2025).
The Connolly timeline was Offence: 29th July 2024, Arrested: 6th August 2024, Charged: 10 August 2024, Guilty Plea: September 2 2024, Sentenced: October 17 2024.
So the time from arrest to guilty plea was 4 weeks.
How is Starmer getting himself in just a muddle over defence spending and the commitment is for 10 years time. In reality, no commitment ever survives two terms in government without adjustment, who knows how the economy will go over the course of a decade, so he has nothing to lose by saving they are committed to it and move on.
He simply cannot commit to 3% without making choices that are alien to him
However, without it the review is just words and you can be certain it will lack credibility
The choice alien to him is to raise taxes. It is as simple as that.
When as a nation we have no money and Russia are about to invade, that is a little bit of a handicap.
The UK as a nation is now committed to the Nato target on defence spending and Russia would have to invade most of the rest of Nato and other European nations and cross the channel before they invaded us
Point of order
UK is not committed to the NATO target of defence spending which is moving towards 5% at their next meeting
Starmer 3% is an ambition by the end of the next parliament with 2.5% by 2027
You cannot decide defence policy on ambition
Nor on an arbitrary percentage. If we can defend the UK for £100 million a year with swarms of drones then that is acceptable.
I think we should make 3% available to the MoD, and then judge each proposal on the merits. If that means boring stuff like new factories and pay rises rather than new submarines then so be it. It could also mean more interconnectors to Europe - that's what security looks like.
Lettuce hope Farage doesn't let this lunatic into Reform.
That's at CPAC 2025.
I wonder if I should write to Mr Anderson advocating for Liz to be let into Reform .
I think Reform will let Liz Truss run. She is (sadly) fairly toxic politically, so if things were on a knife-edge they might not allow it as it would play into Labour attacks. But if they're way ahead, they'll be glad of her and just take any hit. She'd win her former sear easily. And she'd be one of fairly few Reform MPs with top level ministerial experience.
I can see it. I think there are going to be all sorts running for Reform at the next election, and some of the people who have been chucked out may be back. I could she the Black Belt Barrister standing, but he has tacked back modestly from his Starmer obsession.
Sky reporting that both the Conservatives and Lib Dems are demanding 3% defence spending in this parliament
Remind me who was in Government until July last year.
Pre Trump, but try to deflect if you want.
Labour are nearing a year in office and simply have to find the 3% or be widely ridiculed
Yep Labour really should have reversed the 4p income tax cut by putting 3p on income tax
I take it that’s what you are asking for in a very roundabout way
It is a matter of priorities and if keeping us safe demands higher spending then there is no choice but to find the money
So you are happy with 3p on income tax and other cuts in spending - just making sure that we can call you our when you complain that the Government cut something you care about
The current £26m annual spending on DEI will be removed by Reform giving a £7b saving.
Explain the maths please.
In a similar vein
Although as the thread I stole that from points out if Reform explicit calls out the fact that the Government orders councils to provide xyz services but doesn’t then given the money in full to provide the service thst problem should be explicitly called out and shouldn’t be hidden away in the way it currently is
A very long time ago, I asked a former minister under Thatcher if they had considered letting the "Loony Councils" to tax and spend as they liked. He was horrified at the idea of leaving the rate payers at the mercies of such, just for political advantage.
But it is an interesting what-if. Because it began a process of ending the independence of local government.
Sky reporting that both the Conservatives and Lib Dems are demanding 3% defence spending in this parliament
Remind me who was in Government until July last year.
Pre Trump, but try to deflect if you want.
Labour are nearing a year in office and simply have to find the 3% or be widely ridiculed
Yep Labour really should have reversed the 4p income tax cut by putting 3p on income tax
I take it that’s what you are asking for in a very roundabout way
It is a matter of priorities and if keeping us safe demands higher spending then there is no choice but to find the money
So you are happy with 3p on income tax and other cuts in spending - just making sure that we can call you our when you complain that the Government cut something you care about
It is for the government to find the 3% and in a fair way
How is Starmer getting himself in just a muddle over defence spending and the commitment is for 10 years time. In reality, no commitment ever survives two terms in government without adjustment, who knows how the economy will go over the course of a decade, so he has nothing to lose by saving they are committed to it and move on.
He simply cannot commit to 3% without making choices that are alien to him
However, without it the review is just words and you can be certain it will lack credibility
The choice alien to him is to raise taxes. It is as simple as that.
When as a nation we have no money and Russia are about to invade, that is a little bit of a handicap.
The UK as a nation is now committed to the Nato target on defence spending and Russia would have to invade most of the rest of Nato and other European nations and cross the channel before they invaded us
Point of order
UK is not committed to the NATO target of defence spending which is moving towards 5% at their next meeting
Starmer 3% is an ambition by the end of the next parliament with 2.5% by 2027
You cannot decide defence policy on ambition
Nor on an arbitrary percentage. If we can defend the UK for £100 million a year with swarms of drones then that is acceptable.
I think we should make 3% available to the MoD, and then judge each proposal on the merits. If that means boring stuff like new factories and pay rises rather than new submarines then so be it. It could also mean more interconnectors to Europe - that's what security looks like.
Fencing mesh cages all round (and above) open air transformer farms*. Plus better protection against the lines being shorted.
*Obvious since the First Gulf War (1991). The US used cruise missiles that had a "warhead" of a spool of carbon fibre. They would fly around in circles, shorting out transformer farms and power lines.
Sky reporting that both the Conservatives and Lib Dems are demanding 3% defence spending in this parliament
Remind me who was in Government until July last year.
Pre Trump, but try to deflect if you want.
Labour are nearing a year in office and simply have to find the 3% or be widely ridiculed
Yep Labour really should have reversed the 4p income tax cut by putting 3p on income tax
I take it that’s what you are asking for in a very roundabout way
It is a matter of priorities and if keeping us safe demands higher spending then there is no choice but to find the money
Sadly you're correct, but apart from the additional jobs in defence (and BAE, Babcock are miserly employers) this is wasted investment, more effective diplomacy over the last decade or so could have avoided this. Then the same investment could have gone into something that would see a longterm benefit such as transport or improving the energy efficiency of the housing stock.
Sky reporting that both the Conservatives and Lib Dems are demanding 3% defence spending in this parliament
Remind me who was in Government until July last year.
Pre Trump, but try to deflect if you want.
Labour are nearing a year in office and simply have to find the 3% or be widely ridiculed
As an aside your Party including Liz Truss and I believe Braverman and possibly Jenrick were over in America in November flying the flag for a Trump win.
Imane Khelif’s sex-test results from the 2023 World Championships have been published for the first time, with the medical report appearing to indicate that the boxer is biologically male.
Just 36 hours after World Boxing ruled that Khelif, a hugely controversial Olympic champion in women’s boxing at last summer’s Paris Games, would need to undergo sex screening to be eligible for any future appearances in the female category, the document at the heart of this extraordinary saga was released into the public domain.
Alan Abrahamson, the American journalist who disclosed in Paris how the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had been warned more than a year earlier that Khelif had the DNA of a “male”, produced the result of a test carried out on the boxer in New Delhi in March 2023, triggering the boxer’s disqualification from the championships that year.
Sky reporting that both the Conservatives and Lib Dems are demanding 3% defence spending in this parliament
Remind me who was in Government until July last year.
Pre Trump, but try to deflect if you want.
Labour are nearing a year in office and simply have to find the 3% or be widely ridiculed
As an aside your Party including Liz Truss and I believe Braverman and possibly Jenrick were over in America in November flying the flag for a Trump win.
Reform are solidly over that 30% mark and the Tories sunk through the 30% 20% bedrock.
In that case it is time Reform's bogus economic calculations are called out by the Conservatives.
Maybe the Tories new social media star needs to do some tiktoks?
He'd be better off explaining that removing a 26 million pound spend doesn't give a saving of 7 billion pounds, rather than the old fare dodging caper.
How is Starmer getting himself in just a muddle over defence spending and the commitment is for 10 years time. In reality, no commitment ever survives two terms in government without adjustment, who knows how the economy will go over the course of a decade, so he has nothing to lose by saving they are committed to it and move on.
He simply cannot commit to 3% without making choices that are alien to him
However, without it the review is just words and you can be certain it will lack credibility
The choice alien to him is to raise taxes. It is as simple as that.
When as a nation we have no money and Russia are about to invade, that is a little bit of a handicap.
The UK as a nation is now committed to the Nato target on defence spending and Russia would have to invade most of the rest of Nato and other European nations and cross the channel before they invaded us
Point of order
UK is not committed to the NATO target of defence spending which is moving towards 5% at their next meeting
Starmer 3% is an ambition by the end of the next parliament with 2.5% by 2027
You cannot decide defence policy on ambition
Given most NATO nations have not even been meeting the current target the idea they will all suddenly approve and find 5% of gdp for it is optimistic
To build at least six new munitions factories in the UK Create a hybrid Royal Navy, blending drones with warships, submarines and aircraft Under AUKUS (a partnership with the US and Australia) they will deliver up to 12 attack submarines And investing £15bn in the "sovereign warhead programme" - meaning nuclear weapons
I would have hoped anti-drone tech would be top of the list as it is clear that is the new battleground.
Sky reporting that both the Conservatives and Lib Dems are demanding 3% defence spending in this parliament
Remind me who was in Government until July last year.
Pre Trump, but try to deflect if you want.
Labour are nearing a year in office and simply have to find the 3% or be widely ridiculed
As an aside your Party including Liz Truss and I believe Braverman and possibly Jenrick were over in America in November flying the flag for a Trump win.
It is an aside as you say
Not really, they must have had an idea like the rest of us that Trump was more Putin than Zelensky adjacent.
Zia Yusuf :- The current £26m annual spending on DEI will be removed by Reform giving a £7b saving.
Explain the maths please.
Reform UK is a political movement based on the notion that we live in unprecedented times of international uncertainty and social upheaval due to demographic and technological changes. Furthermore, those best placed to diagnose these complex issues and offer solutions are the politicians preferred by people like this:
Zia Yusuf :- The current £26m annual spending on DEI will be removed by Reform giving a £7b saving.
Explain the maths please.
I do not think maths is Reforms strong point
Perhaps they should be scrutinised a little more than they currently are.
Perhaps you could begin this forensic scrutiny by providing an actual quote, or a link to more information? Or did he just leap into frame and say that and nothing else?
Zia Yusuf :- The current £26m annual spending on DEI will be removed by Reform giving a £7b saving.
Explain the maths please.
Reform UK is a political movement based on the notion that we live in unprecedented times of international uncertainty and social upheaval due to demographic and technological changes. Furthermore, those best placed to diagnose these complex issues and offer solutions are the politicians preferred by people like this:
Comments
Good job universities have loads of spare money and not on the verge of bankruptcy due to Nigerian economy blowing up.....
I also have a great deal of sympathy for people exploited like this who will not get justice.
How do they get justice when these companies simply fold or just blame a middle man in these people’s home country.
2. Are you suggesting the problem is Starmer or the left?
"24. The minimum sentence after a trial would have been three and a half
years imprisonment.
25. You pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management hearing and you
are therefore entitled to a reduction in that sentence of twenty five
percent.
26. The sentence on count 1 therefore is one of 31 months imprisonment.
You will serve forty percent of that sentence."
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15079019.blue-sky-thinking-scots-town-hates-colour-green/
A friend who did an Art History PhD at Oxford (full overseas fees) commented that it was the most expensive library card on earth. Aside from an hour or 2 a week with Martin Kemp, that's all he got, really.
Why do you think it's far more talk about funding apprenticeships, than actuality - often they cost far, far more than many degrees to fund.
Its all so weak and wishy
Perhaps there is a need for a public information campaign.
ETA:-
The cuts would see chemistry and film & television courses shut down...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn8zelyx44zo
I do wonder what would have happened if she went ‘not guilty’ and tried to justify/explain it.
Someone told me the local Asda has blue signage as they didn’t want to use green. Never went, not sure if true, but I could have believed it.
In all the written judgements you see, these days, the points are about evaluating a particular criteria in the sentencing guidelines. So any appeal would go through, checking off the whether all of the guidelines were applied.
Most of the Southport riot folk who went Not Guilty are getting acquitted. Juries are much more sympathetic than Two Tier Kier
Reducing the cost of government is perfectly possible. It would take half a decade to start showing a results, though, as part of a structured program of continuous renewal and improvement to increase productivity. And might well require increased expenditure at the start.
People who weren't around then can have no idea of the liberating effect of easy and freely available contraception.
Reality is I think she was in an awful position having done something that in other circumstances / times wouldn’t have blown up so would have been ignored or a quiet word said, attached to legal advice which may have been right except for the seriousness of the aggravating circumstances.
But as I’ve pointed out before in riot act situations exaggerated sentences are the default to ensure that those listening are discouraged from doing the same stupid mistakes later
Can you run a society like that?
In nineteen sixty-three
(which was rather late for me) -
Between the end of the Chatterley ban
And the Beatles' first LP.
Up to then there'd only been
A sort of bargaining,
A wrangle for the ring,
A shame that started at sixteen
And spread to everything.
Not that I’m surprised as ITV announced the week before last, it’s hard to make money making tv shows at the moment
It's a matter of reading the social history, listening to the accounts of those who were there, and doing a bit of reflection.
if we can't understand different times, then we may as well sack all the historians as they will be wrong all the time as a matter of ontology.
If we don't spend less on welfare, then we have to tax more.
Trying to avoid cutting welfare or increasing taxes measures that not only won't you solve the fiscal problem, you'll screw up everything else by searching for cuts in things like the criminal justice system.
The credit card is maxxed out, so that's not an alternative either.
We can still borrow for genuine economically productive investment, but not Gordon Brown style 'investment'.
Everything else is a distraction.
The National
@ScotNational
·
7m
BREAKING: A Scottish councillor has become the latest to defect from the Conservatives to Reform UK, Nigel Farage has confirmed in Aberdeen
The Reform UK leader also announced a Labour councillor would be defecting this afternoon
https://x.com/ScotNational/status/1929473387853746378
A grandson, as part of his history degree, had to do something about the social changes in the 1960's. I asked him if he'd included the ending of National Service. He said he hadn't, much to my amazement. Without that ending we'd never have had the musical flowering that the 60's produced.
Wander in to Asda and steal a bottle of water on your way home from work = slapped wrist, sent your way by plod, if they are involved at all.
Enter Asda in the midst of a riot and steal a bottle of water as everyone around you causes mayhem = banged up most likely.
For example, without getting into any morality issues, there's a contradiction between widely available abortion on the NHS and a dwindling working age population paying for all the elderly.
Also between the increasing (edit) redundancy of so many without the skills to cope with technology and the universal franchise enabling non-productive people (of whom I am one) to vote themselves more benefits.
I'd like to think there's an academic body out there somewhere that's giving a lot of hard thought & research into how these circles can be squared, because it's plainly beyond any political party that wants to be elected.
Good morning, everyone.
Just drove out of Vianden and the route to my next Luxembourgeois destination takes me through a tiny slice of Germany
As soon as you cross the the border (marked by a tiny schenghen sign, huzzah for schenghen) it suddenly feels poorer. The roads are pot holed. The bus stops are grubby. Not the immaculacy of Luxembourg
Makes sense of course given the large discrepancy in gdp per capita, but still striking
*Partly clever positioning I am sure, but also a very natural consequence of being European focused these days.
🚨 NEW | Reform lead by 6pts
🟦 REF – 31% (+2)
🔴 LAB – 25% (-)
🔵 CON – 17% (-1)
🟠 LD – 11% (-2)
🟢 GRN – 10% (-)
Via @OpiniumResearch, 29-30 May (+/- vs 14-16 May)
https://x.com/leftiestats/status/1929129032613761350?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Farage 31
Starmer 20
Davey 19
Kami 15
Party leaders across the board have all seen a drop in net approval ratings since we last asked the public a fortnight ago. Kei Starmer’s ratings hit a low of -37% net approval, down 3 points. Badenoch sees a drop of 7 point, sitting at a -27% net approval. Both Nigel Farage and Ed Davey see a drop of 5 points (net approval of -11% and -4% respectively).
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/opinium-voting-intention-28th-may-2025/
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=17&LAB=25&LIB=11&Reform=31&Green=10&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
80 year old man: “Golden Dome!”
18 year old FPV drone operators:
https://bsky.app/profile/thehistoryguy.bsky.social/post/3lqmjotjics2s
Then put the Tory party and Lib Dem name against it
It seems surreal that Starmer identifies the problem but is incapable of commiting to the spending
He said his first duty is to protect the nation then increase taxes to pay for it
Explain the maths please.
Although as the thread I stole that from points out if Reform explicit calls out the fact that the Government orders councils to provide xyz services but doesn’t then given the money in full to provide the service thst problem should be explicitly called out and shouldn’t be hidden away in the way it currently is
Labour are nearing a year in office and simply have to find the 3% or be widely ridiculed
Besides, the government will be widely ridiculed whatever they do. Price of being in government.
(But yes, defence spending needs to increase, and it has to come from taxes. And those calling for higher defence spending will be the first to howl with rage if that happens.)
I take it that’s what you are asking for in a very roundabout way
UK is not committed to the NATO target of defence spending which is moving towards 5% at their next meeting
Starmer 3% is an ambition by the end of the next parliament with 2.5% by 2027
You cannot decide defence policy on ambition
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/Lucy-Connolly-v-The-King-1.pdf
It also has a more detailed timeline, including tweets she made in the same niche one week before and afterwards.
In one way I'm baffled that anyone is still talking about this, other than for purely political reasons, as they don't like the same standards being applied to "their" people as were applied to those who were not "their" people in eg the London riots around 2011.
To me the comparison with "The Labour Councillor who is still out on bail" seems spurious; his alleged offence was not on the day of nationwide disorder (was it in October?), and he did not plead guilty, so there is an extended period before trial (initially set for Jan 2025, now Aug 2025).
The Connolly timeline was Offence: 29th July 2024, Arrested: 6th August 2024, Charged: 10 August 2024, Guilty Plea: September 2 2024, Sentenced: October 17 2024.
So the time from arrest to guilty plea was 4 weeks.
30%20% bedrock.I think we should make 3% available to the MoD, and then judge each proposal on the merits. If that means boring stuff like new factories and pay rises rather than new submarines then so be it. It could also mean more interconnectors to Europe - that's what security looks like.
But it is an interesting what-if. Because it began a process of ending the independence of local government.
There are many choices including taxes
*Obvious since the First Gulf War (1991). The US used cruise missiles that had a "warhead" of a spool of carbon fibre. They would fly around in circles, shorting out transformer farms and power lines.
Then the same investment could have gone into something that would see a longterm benefit such as transport or improving the energy efficiency of the housing stock.
Just 36 hours after World Boxing ruled that Khelif, a hugely controversial Olympic champion in women’s boxing at last summer’s Paris Games, would need to undergo sex screening to be eligible for any future appearances in the female category, the document at the heart of this extraordinary saga was released into the public domain.
Alan Abrahamson, the American journalist who disclosed in Paris how the International Olympic Committee (IOC) had been warned more than a year earlier that Khelif had the DNA of a “male”, produced the result of a test carried out on the boxer in New Delhi in March 2023, triggering the boxer’s disqualification from the championships that year.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/boxing/2025/06/01/imane-khelif-medical-report-proves-biological-male/
I feel sorry for the individual in these cases, but it dangerous and totally unfair to let them compete against biological women.
For any blocked item in telegraph: just hit the "reader view" icon in the toolbar then "back" then "forward". Voila.
To build at least six new munitions factories in the UK
Create a hybrid Royal Navy, blending drones with warships, submarines and aircraft
Under AUKUS (a partnership with the US and Australia) they will deliver up to 12 attack submarines
And investing £15bn in the "sovereign warhead programme" - meaning nuclear weapons
I would have hoped anti-drone tech would be top of the list as it is clear that is the new battleground.