It is pretty hard to see where the Iranian regime goes from here.
Even in a “deal” scenario, it will be visibly weakened and exposed to being toppled. I am not sure it can survive otherwise though. It can’t win the conflict, and if it fights to the end it will ultimately go down, either from external bombs or internal insurrection.
Probably better to go the Assad way and just flee to somewhere that will have them,
That would be a good outcome. An Islamist theocracy isn't a good thing, and its end would be welcome. One would need to be very wary of what replaced it though. I don't know if we have a Shah lurking around, but if we do, I wouldn't be too confident of him going the distance.
It is pretty hard to see where the Iranian regime goes from here.
Even in a “deal” scenario, it will be visibly weakened and exposed to being toppled. I am not sure it can survive otherwise though. It can’t win the conflict, and if it fights to the end it will ultimately go down, either from external bombs or internal insurrection.
Probably better to go the Assad way and just flee to somewhere that will have them,
The problem is not just the mad Mullahs; it's the entire security apparatus they've built below them of true believers. E.g. the morality police.
As with Syria, Iraq, Lybia, etc etc.
Personally I’d believe a fair few things if my livelihood depended on it.
I’m sure the post overthrow planning will be up to the usual western standard
A quick Google search tells me there are nearly 10 million people in Tehran itself, and nearly 17 million in the wider metropolitan area. I'm not convinced by the practicality of Israel and/or Trump advising people to leave Tehran.
It is pretty hard to see where the Iranian regime goes from here.
Even in a “deal” scenario, it will be visibly weakened and exposed to being toppled. I am not sure it can survive otherwise though. It can’t win the conflict, and if it fights to the end it will ultimately go down, either from external bombs or internal insurrection.
Probably better to go the Assad way and just flee to somewhere that will have them,
That would be a good outcome. An Islamist theocracy isn't a good thing, and its end would be welcome. One would need to be very wary of what replaced it though. I don't know if we have a Shah lurking around, but if we do, I wouldn't be too confident of him going the distance.
It is pretty hard to see where the Iranian regime goes from here.
Even in a “deal” scenario, it will be visibly weakened and exposed to being toppled. I am not sure it can survive otherwise though. It can’t win the conflict, and if it fights to the end it will ultimately go down, either from external bombs or internal insurrection.
Probably better to go the Assad way and just flee to somewhere that will have them,
That would be a good outcome. An Islamist theocracy isn't a good thing, and its end would be welcome. One would need to be very wary of what replaced it though. I don't know if we have a Shah lurking around, but if we do, I wouldn't be too confident of him going the distance.
I think, given the ineptitude of the west on previous regime changes this one (assuming it happens) will be just as inept.
All good, and I like to see a monarch being restored, but they should be constitutional only - it isn't fair to ask someone to rule Iran after life in the Ritz.
If the level of force deployment and tempo of activity is in excess of that required for sabre rattling, you have to assume that the intention is to use it.
This is a longstanding way of assessing military deployments and it applies here with US force maneuvered. If anyone, however, could disprove it, its Trump. The problem is he has potentially cornered himself as well as Iran if this is pressure without intent.
It's not just what is coming into theater, it's what is moving within it that you need to watch.
We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured "stuff." Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA.
We know exactly where the so-called "Supreme Leader" is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don't want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured "stuff." Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA.
We know exactly where the so-called "Supreme Leader" is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don't want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
@TSE and @rcs1000 is there not a way you can insulate PB against the online safety act police by moving the hosting etc of the site outside the UK (I’m an absolute Neanderthal re tech so have no idea of the technicals).
As TSE will know, lawyers look for loopholes, my existence is based on finding loopholes and alternative ways of doing things, apparently insurance companies aren’t averse to looking for the odd loophole to avoid a payout (clearly not in RCS’s case).
Surely it can’t be the case that anything online viewed in the UK is subject to that law, just UK entities? I’m sure you guys have gamed this but of all sites, and all people who,love this site, we can’t just sit and take a massive restriction on freedom to discuss and argue such contentious issues that will arise in life?
Obvs Guido is rarely an example but I remember back in the day how he based Guido in Ireland to be outside certain reporting restrictions.
There are things on the othe PB and CDAN which would be dodgy under UK law but outside jurisdiction.
Would love to know if you guys have considered moving whatever needs to be moved or if it’s otherwise too problematic.
@TSE and @rcs1000 is there not a way you can insulate PB against the online safety act police by moving the hosting etc of the site outside the UK (I’m an absolute Neanderthal re tech so have no idea of the technicals).
As TSE will know, lawyers look for loopholes, my existence is based on finding loopholes and alternative ways of doing things, apparently insurance companies aren’t averse to looking for the odd loophole to avoid a payout (clearly not in RCS’s case).
Surely it can’t be the case that anything online viewed in the UK is subject to that law, just UK entities? I’m sure you guys have gamed this but of all sites, and all people who,love this site, we can’t just sit and take a massive restriction on freedom to discuss and argue such contentious issues that will arise in life?
Obvs Guido is rarely an example but I remember back in the day how he based Guido in Ireland to be outside certain reporting restrictions.
There are things on the othe PB and CDAN which would be dodgy under UK law but outside jurisdiction.
Would love to know if you guys have considered moving whatever needs to be moved or if it’s otherwise too problematic.
We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured "stuff." Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA.
We know exactly where the so-called "Supreme Leader" is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don't want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
What is the basis, under US law for a President issuing such an ultimatum, without prior Congressional approval ?
Just curious.
he doesn't need one, all he is doing is commenting on a conflict that the USA is not directly involved in (at the moment). It's like commenting on any other war that they are not directly involved in. He's just saying things most world leaders wouldn't.
in the event they were directly involved he'd not need congressional approval to demand an unconditional surrender or to sabre rattle by threatening the supreme leader.
It's not as though the US has the capacity to occupy Iran, or even a portion of it.
Or China were to decide to take the opportunity of the USN being otherwise engaged, to occupy Taiwan ?
Twix rumours that Ahmadinejad has been assassinated by masked gunmen. If true, either the coup is on. Or mossad owns the streets of Tehran. Not sure which is worse from the Atatollah’s perspective.
It shows the randomness of such research. If they were using PB for data the results may have been very different if @Leon was on one of his ban vacations.
This is an unedifying spectacle - given that - as you and @TSE both know - I am not allowed to answer back on this subject
But if that is the only way you guys are able to win a debate with me, and this pleases you, knock yerselves out
We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured "stuff." Nobody does it better than the good ol' USA.
We know exactly where the so-called "Supreme Leader" is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there - We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don't want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!
What is the basis, under US law for a President issuing such an ultimatum, without prior Congressional approval ?
Just curious.
he doesn't need one, all he is doing is commenting on a conflict that the USA is not directly involved in (at the moment). It's like commenting on any other war that they are not directly involved in. He's just saying things most world leaders wouldn't.
in the event they were directly involved he'd not need congressional approval to demand an unconditional surrender or to sabre rattle by threatening the supreme leader.
A demand with menaces of a foreign head of state is not 'commenting'.
@TSE and @rcs1000 is there not a way you can insulate PB against the online safety act police by moving the hosting etc of the site outside the UK (I’m an absolute Neanderthal re tech so have no idea of the technicals).
As TSE will know, lawyers look for loopholes, my existence is based on finding loopholes and alternative ways of doing things, apparently insurance companies aren’t averse to looking for the odd loophole to avoid a payout (clearly not in RCS’s case).
Surely it can’t be the case that anything online viewed in the UK is subject to that law, just UK entities? I’m sure you guys have gamed this but of all sites, and all people who,love this site, we can’t just sit and take a massive restriction on freedom to discuss and argue such contentious issues that will arise in life?
Obvs Guido is rarely an example but I remember back in the day how he based Guido in Ireland to be outside certain reporting restrictions.
There are things on the othe PB and CDAN which would be dodgy under UK law but outside jurisdiction.
Would love to know if you guys have considered moving whatever needs to be moved or if it’s otherwise too problematic.
Ok thanks. That’s horrible overreach that the UK gov would squawk about when China etc does it.
Please keep up the good work though, nobody here wants to get the site into trouble but we all get a bit lively about certain topics and it must be very hard balancing free speech and not being bummed in prison so thank you.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
I'm not clear on all of the details on this but the law hasn't changed as much as you think. it will no longer be possible to prosecute the woman for having the abortion when she is considering her own health and the health of her baby. it will still be possible to prosecute doctors, partners and others for getting involved when the existing laws would apply.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
As I understand it the abortion limit remains at 24 weeks for the medical profession, but this is an utterly irresponsible decision which will have implications for the medical profession who will have to deal with the consequences of it.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
You tiresome little REDACTED
The thing is, as the law currently stands, any woman who has an abortion can be prosecuted at any time for having an abortion regardless on how old the foetus is. even if it's under 24 weeks. abortion wasn't made legal in the 1960s just possible
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
Your post is exactly correct.
And this was the whole point of passing the Antoniazzi amendment rather than the Creasy one.
Which is also why it was supported by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and all major abortion providers.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
You tiresome little REDACTED
The thing is, as the law currently stands, any woman who has an abortion can be prosecuted at any time for having an abortion regardless on how old the foetus is. even if it's under 24 weeks. abortion wasn't made legal in the 1960s just possible
You don’t understand. To @Leon absolutely everything new or different is a sign of total and complete moral and intellectual collapse and a complete and utter evil. All sense of perspective or temperance should be abandoned.
It shows the randomness of such research. If they were using PB for data the results may have been very different if @Leon was on one of his ban vacations.
This is an unedifying spectacle - given that - as you and @TSE both know - I am not allowed to answer back on this subject
But if that is the only way you guys are able to win a debate with me, and this pleases you, knock yerselves out
It was a joke as was TSE's comment. Being a little sensitive there aren't we?. You might want to bear that in mind when you use your extensive vocabulary to abuse others which you vdo regularly.. If you can't take a little ribbing you shouldn't give it out.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
This is the sort of law that is going to have all sorts of unintended consequences.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
You tiresome little REDACTED
The thing is, as the law currently stands, any woman who has an abortion can be prosecuted at any time for having an abortion regardless on how old the foetus is. even if it's under 24 weeks. abortion wasn't made legal in the 1960s just possible
What was wrong with that? It's a wise way of dealing with the ambiguity around when life begins.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
@TSE and @rcs1000 is there not a way you can insulate PB against the online safety act police by moving the hosting etc of the site outside the UK (I’m an absolute Neanderthal re tech so have no idea of the technicals).
As TSE will know, lawyers look for loopholes, my existence is based on finding loopholes and alternative ways of doing things, apparently insurance companies aren’t averse to looking for the odd loophole to avoid a payout (clearly not in RCS’s case).
Surely it can’t be the case that anything online viewed in the UK is subject to that law, just UK entities? I’m sure you guys have gamed this but of all sites, and all people who,love this site, we can’t just sit and take a massive restriction on freedom to discuss and argue such contentious issues that will arise in life?
Obvs Guido is rarely an example but I remember back in the day how he based Guido in Ireland to be outside certain reporting restrictions.
There are things on the othe PB and CDAN which would be dodgy under UK law but outside jurisdiction.
Would love to know if you guys have considered moving whatever needs to be moved or if it’s otherwise too problematic.
If memory serves, doesn't California and Florida have freedom-of-speech laws? If Robert ever decides to settle in LA permanently and take US citizenship, then he could take over the site fully and neither you nor OGH would be legally liable any more. Or am I missing something obvious?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police could do their jobs and investigate I guess.
The age of two is elitist.....any age up till age of majority should be acceptable (but 16, 18 or 21 )should be be up for debate. Maybe 16 in Wales, 28 in England, 21 in Scotland??
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
This is the sort of law that is going to have all sorts of unintended consequences.
One consequence being that any future Reform or Conservative government might reduce the legal time for abortions.
Though I doubt the people in favour of this law were bothered about consequences as opposed to doing some virtue signalling cosplay.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
You tiresome little REDACTED
The thing is, as the law currently stands, any woman who has an abortion can be prosecuted at any time for having an abortion regardless on how old the foetus is. even if it's under 24 weeks. abortion wasn't made legal in the 1960s just possible
You don’t understand. To @Leon absolutely everything new or different is a sign of total and complete moral and intellectual collapse and a complete and utter evil. All sense of perspective or temperance should be abandoned.
It's funny that someone who has been so vocally proud of his sleeping around with lots of prostitutes also seems keen to stop women dealing with the occasional consequences of sex.
It shows the randomness of such research. If they were using PB for data the results may have been very different if @Leon was on one of his ban vacations.
This is an unedifying spectacle - given that - as you and @TSE both know - I am not allowed to answer back on this subject
But if that is the only way you guys are able to win a debate with me, and this pleases you, knock yerselves out
It was a joke as was TSE's comment. Being a little sensitive there aren't we?. You might want to bear that in mind when you use your extensive vocabulary to abuse others which you vdo regularly.. If you can't take a little ribbing you shouldn't give it out.
But the thing is, you ridiculous twerp, I am NOT allowed to answer back on this subject. As you well know
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
I think we should just allow women to kill their babies up to the age of, say, two, because erm Feminism and also because it will "annoy rightwingers"
As usual you are being wilfully mischievous.
The Creasey amendment was more troublesome but the passed amendment simply decriminalises the mother. It doesn't allow a clinician induced abortion at full term, which is what you are implying.
The moral issues are complex. You however are making cheap political points.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
This is the sort of law that is going to have all sorts of unintended consequences.
One consequence being that any future Reform or Conservative government might reduce the legal time for abortions.
Though I doubt the people in favour of this law were bothered about consequences as opposed to doing some virtue signalling cosplay.
Exactly. Something that was settled is now fair game to change with minimal to no public debate about it.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
This is the sort of law that is going to have all sorts of unintended consequences.
One consequence being that any future Reform or Conservative government might reduce the legal time for abortions.
Though I doubt the people in favour of this law were bothered about consequences as opposed to doing some virtue signalling cosplay.
Exactly. Something that was settled is now fair game to change with minimal to no public debate about it.
Not really because it hasn’t changed. But of course “the liberals made me do it”.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police could do their jobs and investigate I guess.
Plod: Who carried out the abortion ? Mother: I did. Plod: Did anyone help you ? Mother: No.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
Get a grip you grumpy old man
You don't think the right to life of a nine month old fetus, entirely viable, waiting to be born, is worthy of debate?
You tiresome little REDACTED
The thing is, as the law currently stands, any woman who has an abortion can be prosecuted at any time for having an abortion regardless on how old the foetus is. even if it's under 24 weeks. abortion wasn't made legal in the 1960s just possible
You don’t understand. To @Leon absolutely everything new or different is a sign of total and complete moral and intellectual collapse and a complete and utter evil. All sense of perspective or temperance should be abandoned.
There are days where pointing out the truth to people who won't listen is what I need. Today is one of those days.
I think we should just allow women to kill their babies up to the age of, say, two, because erm Feminism and also because it will "annoy rightwingers"
Easy! I’m seriously lucky because firstly I’m a man and I will never ever have to take that ultimate decision. My older sister is still destroyed by making that decision to have an abortion in her late teens. We can, to various extents walk away as men. I’m no feminist but the woman has the ultimate decision and has to live with it in a worse way than we do.
Secondly I’m so relieved it won’t be part of my life to make that decision, I date and have relationships with women who are generally “post-kids” and I don’t want children so it’s never going to be a horrid factor in my life.
Of all people on here you know that you can get into bad situations and have to take drastic actions.
Again, I’m so so glad I will never have to instruct a doctor to “kill” a child but you are intelligent enough to know it’s not that simple.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
This is the sort of law that is going to have all sorts of unintended consequences.
One consequence being that any future Reform or Conservative government might reduce the legal time for abortions.
Though I doubt the people in favour of this law were bothered about consequences as opposed to doing some virtue signalling cosplay.
Exactly. Something that was settled is now fair game to change with minimal to no public debate about it.
Parliament is sovereign. Surely Brexit taught you that.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
This is the sort of law that is going to have all sorts of unintended consequences.
One consequence being that any future Reform or Conservative government might reduce the legal time for abortions.
Though I doubt the people in favour of this law were bothered about consequences as opposed to doing some virtue signalling cosplay.
Exactly. Something that was settled is now fair game to change with minimal to no public debate about it.
When we Reformers get in we should reduce abortion to 3 days after conception and arrest basically everyone "just to annoy the left". That is the philosophical depth of the debate we have just had, as far as I can see
"Only three women were convicted of having an illegal abortion between 1861 and November 2022, when the law was changed to allow women to take abortion pills at home if they were less than 10 weeks pregnant.
Records collected by the UK's largest abortion services have found at least 100 women have been investigated for having an abortion in the last five years, and six have appeared in court."
So, if they don't like the new spate of prosecutions, instead of changing the law, how about reversing the previous change?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police could do their jobs and investigate I guess.
Plod: Who carried out the abortion ? Mother: I did. Plod: Did anyone help you ? Mother: No.
End of investigation.
I don’t really see a problem. If the Police want to stop their investigation there then that’s up to them.
@TSE and @rcs1000 is there not a way you can insulate PB against the online safety act police by moving the hosting etc of the site outside the UK (I’m an absolute Neanderthal re tech so have no idea of the technicals).
As TSE will know, lawyers look for loopholes, my existence is based on finding loopholes and alternative ways of doing things, apparently insurance companies aren’t averse to looking for the odd loophole to avoid a payout (clearly not in RCS’s case).
Surely it can’t be the case that anything online viewed in the UK is subject to that law, just UK entities? I’m sure you guys have gamed this but of all sites, and all people who,love this site, we can’t just sit and take a massive restriction on freedom to discuss and argue such contentious issues that will arise in life?
Obvs Guido is rarely an example but I remember back in the day how he based Guido in Ireland to be outside certain reporting restrictions.
There are things on the othe PB and CDAN which would be dodgy under UK law but outside jurisdiction.
Would love to know if you guys have considered moving whatever needs to be moved or if it’s otherwise too problematic.
If memory serves, doesn't California and Florida have freedom-of-speech laws? If Robert ever decides to settle in LA permanently and take US citizenship, then he could take over the site fully and neither you nor OGH would be legally liable any more. Or am I missing something obvious?
Yes, OGH and myself would be classed as site operators.
The previously anonymous operator of an online gossip forum described as a trolls’ paradise has been unmasked after losing a defamation case.
Sebastian Bond, also known as Bastian Durward, has been confirmed as the man behind Tattle Life after an Irish couple successfully sued the publisher, according to reports.
Tattle Life describes itself as a platform for “commentary and critiques of people that choose to monetise their personal life as a business and release it into the public domain”. It attracts up to 12 million visitors monthly, mostly in the UK.
The website has long been criticised for threads of toxic and hate-filled comments. On Friday at the high court of justice in Northern Ireland, Mr Justice Colton confirmed that Bond and two of his firms – Yuzu Zest Limited, a UK-registered company, and Kumquat Tree Limited, registered in Hong Kong – were the publishers of the site, the Journal reported. Bond had been using the name “Helen McDougal” on the website.
Bond, who the court heard used a number of other aliases, is known on the internet as a vegan cooking influencer and author of the book Nest and Glow. The Nest and Glow Instagram account has 135,000 followers.
The plaintiffs in the case were Neil and Donna Sands, who were originally awarded £300,000 damages against the then unknown operators of Tattle Life in late 2023. Donna Sands runs the popular clothing brand Sylkie, while Neil Sands is an AI founder and businessman. The couple were subject to defamation and harassment on the website.
Mr Justice McAlinden said the website was “solely aimed at making profit out of people’s misery”. He said: “This is clearly a case of peddling untruths for profit. People facilitating this are making money out of it … protecting their income streams by protecting the identity of the individual posters.”
After the ruling on Friday, the couple posted a statement on Instagram. It read: “For nearly a decade, the hate site Tattle Life has profited as a space where users could defame, harass, stalk and attack others online – all behind a veil of seeming anonymity.
I think we should just allow women to kill their babies up to the age of, say, two, because erm Feminism and also because it will "annoy rightwingers"
As usual you are being wilfully mischievous.
The Creasey amendment was more troublesome but the passed amendment simply decriminalises the mother. It doesn't allow a clinician induced abortion at full term, which is what you are implying.
The moral issues are complex. You however are making cheap political points.
It is only complex if you have lost leave of your humanity and morality.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police could do their jobs and investigate I guess.
Plod: Who carried out the abortion ? Mother: I did. Plod: Did anyone help you ? Mother: No.
End of investigation.
That does sound as thorough as most of their investigations, being fair.
MPs are set to vote next week to decriminalise abortions that take place outside of set rules - in 2023 we found that 52% of Britons agreed that women should not face criminal prosecution in such cases
I think we should just allow women to kill their babies up to the age of, say, two, because erm Feminism and also because it will "annoy rightwingers"
As usual you are being wilfully mischievous.
The Creasey amendment was more troublesome but the passed amendment simply decriminalises the mother. It doesn't allow a clinician induced abortion at full term, which is what you are implying.
The moral issues are complex. You however are making cheap political points.
It is only complex if you have lost leave of your humanity and morality.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
This is the sort of law that is going to have all sorts of unintended consequences.
Sadly, very much yes, but it won't be the MPs who voted for it today that will be left dealing with those unintended consequences.
@TSE and @rcs1000 is there not a way you can insulate PB against the online safety act police by moving the hosting etc of the site outside the UK (I’m an absolute Neanderthal re tech so have no idea of the technicals).
As TSE will know, lawyers look for loopholes, my existence is based on finding loopholes and alternative ways of doing things, apparently insurance companies aren’t averse to looking for the odd loophole to avoid a payout (clearly not in RCS’s case).
Surely it can’t be the case that anything online viewed in the UK is subject to that law, just UK entities? I’m sure you guys have gamed this but of all sites, and all people who,love this site, we can’t just sit and take a massive restriction on freedom to discuss and argue such contentious issues that will arise in life?
Obvs Guido is rarely an example but I remember back in the day how he based Guido in Ireland to be outside certain reporting restrictions.
There are things on the othe PB and CDAN which would be dodgy under UK law but outside jurisdiction.
Would love to know if you guys have considered moving whatever needs to be moved or if it’s otherwise too problematic.
If memory serves, doesn't California and Florida have freedom-of-speech laws? If Robert ever decides to settle in LA permanently and take US citizenship, then he could take over the site fully and neither you nor OGH would be legally liable any more. Or am I missing something obvious?
Surely somewhere like Delaware must be looking at allowing LLM's to be owners of businesses, websites etc. If not, they're missing a trick.
Admittedly a bad, very short-term trick. But still.
@TSE and @rcs1000 is there not a way you can insulate PB against the online safety act police by moving the hosting etc of the site outside the UK (I’m an absolute Neanderthal re tech so have no idea of the technicals).
As TSE will know, lawyers look for loopholes, my existence is based on finding loopholes and alternative ways of doing things, apparently insurance companies aren’t averse to looking for the odd loophole to avoid a payout (clearly not in RCS’s case).
Surely it can’t be the case that anything online viewed in the UK is subject to that law, just UK entities? I’m sure you guys have gamed this but of all sites, and all people who,love this site, we can’t just sit and take a massive restriction on freedom to discuss and argue such contentious issues that will arise in life?
Obvs Guido is rarely an example but I remember back in the day how he based Guido in Ireland to be outside certain reporting restrictions.
There are things on the othe PB and CDAN which would be dodgy under UK law but outside jurisdiction.
Would love to know if you guys have considered moving whatever needs to be moved or if it’s otherwise too problematic.
If memory serves, doesn't California and Florida have freedom-of-speech laws? If Robert ever decides to settle in LA permanently and take US citizenship, then he could take over the site fully and neither you nor OGH would be legally liable any more. Or am I missing something obvious?
Yes, OGH and myself would be classed as site operators.
The previously anonymous operator of an online gossip forum described as a trolls’ paradise has been unmasked after losing a defamation case.
Sebastian Bond, also known as Bastian Durward, has been confirmed as the man behind Tattle Life after an Irish couple successfully sued the publisher, according to reports.
Tattle Life describes itself as a platform for “commentary and critiques of people that choose to monetise their personal life as a business and release it into the public domain”. It attracts up to 12 million visitors monthly, mostly in the UK.
The website has long been criticised for threads of toxic and hate-filled comments. On Friday at the high court of justice in Northern Ireland, Mr Justice Colton confirmed that Bond and two of his firms – Yuzu Zest Limited, a UK-registered company, and Kumquat Tree Limited, registered in Hong Kong – were the publishers of the site, the Journal reported. Bond had been using the name “Helen McDougal” on the website.
Bond, who the court heard used a number of other aliases, is known on the internet as a vegan cooking influencer and author of the book Nest and Glow. The Nest and Glow Instagram account has 135,000 followers.
The plaintiffs in the case were Neil and Donna Sands, who were originally awarded £300,000 damages against the then unknown operators of Tattle Life in late 2023. Donna Sands runs the popular clothing brand Sylkie, while Neil Sands is an AI founder and businessman. The couple were subject to defamation and harassment on the website.
Mr Justice McAlinden said the website was “solely aimed at making profit out of people’s misery”. He said: “This is clearly a case of peddling untruths for profit. People facilitating this are making money out of it … protecting their income streams by protecting the identity of the individual posters.”
After the ruling on Friday, the couple posted a statement on Instagram. It read: “For nearly a decade, the hate site Tattle Life has profited as a space where users could defame, harass, stalk and attack others online – all behind a veil of seeming anonymity.
Sympathies. The encroachment of English law on Free Speech, as we know it, is spectacularly sinister - and it comes from all angles, blasphemy laws to the left, Online Safety Acts to the fore
We need a Constitution like the Americans, and we need it NOW. I hope a radical Reform government might consider this. Total protection of Free Speech. Otherwise it is going to die
I think we should just allow women to kill their babies up to the age of, say, two, because erm Feminism and also because it will "annoy rightwingers"
As usual you are being wilfully mischievous.
The Creasey amendment was more troublesome but the passed amendment simply decriminalises the mother. It doesn't allow a clinician induced abortion at full term, which is what you are implying.
The moral issues are complex. You however are making cheap political points.
It is only complex if you have lost leave of your humanity and morality.
MPs are set to vote next week to decriminalise abortions that take place outside of set rules - in 2023 we found that 52% of Britons agreed that women should not face criminal prosecution in such cases
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
As I have already pointed out in reply to you, Kier Starmer has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of this amendment. It was tabled by a backbencher and was classed as a free vote which is entirely usual for matters of conscience. If the Conservatives were in government then this would have been handled exactly the same. Starmer didn't even vote for it. Are you going to continue to peddle this falsehood?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
This is the sort of law that is going to have all sorts of unintended consequences.
One consequence being that any future Reform or Conservative government might reduce the legal time for abortions.
Though I doubt the people in favour of this law were bothered about consequences as opposed to doing some virtue signalling cosplay.
The thing is that there will always be a chunk of Conservative MPs who will not vote to tighten abortion laws.
So in practice it would need a Con majority of probably at least 60 and maybe even 80 to make any such change. Very unlikely to actually happen in the next say 25 years.
And Boris's majority Government didn't try - and I'm not sure just decriminalising the mother really makes any difference to views on the limit which will still apply in well over 99% of cases.
However notice all the Gazan Independents voting with the Conservatives. If in a few decades they became a large block of say 30 to 40 then combined with a Conservative Government then maybe there could be a majority.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
So is it back to the old days of a bottle of gin and a knitting needle ?
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Are our law makers confident that a baby aborted by an amateur will actually be delivered dead? Suppose the child is alive on arrival? Is mother allowed to kill him/her?
Nothing has changed other than the woman herself is no longer committing a criminal offence. Any abortions happening outside the approved channels were illegal and are still illegal.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
As I have already pointed out in reply to you, Kier Starmer has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of this amendment. It was tabled by a backbencher and was classed as a free vote which is entirely usual for matters of conscience. If the Conservatives were in government then this would have been handled exactly the same. Starmer didn't even vote for it. Are you going to continue to peddle this falsehood?
Yes, because it is not a falsehood
This is Starmerism. He makes space for this kind of evil shit, his existence as leader allows it to happen, because he approves. See the State Assisted Suicide Act
I think we should just allow women to kill their babies up to the age of, say, two, because erm Feminism and also because it will "annoy rightwingers"
As usual you are being wilfully mischievous.
The Creasey amendment was more troublesome but the passed amendment simply decriminalises the mother. It doesn't allow a clinician induced abortion at full term, which is what you are implying.
The moral issues are complex. You however are making cheap political points.
It is only complex if you have lost leave of your humanity and morality.
Blessed be the fruit
The only mainstream politician in this country I can remember talk willingly about a personal preference for an outright abortion ban is Tim Farron. It is not a view you tend to come across much and isn’t one I take either.
In a stroke however our parliament has just politicised what was a relatively settled issue in this country. But go ahead with your insults taken from crap cable tv.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
As I have already pointed out in reply to you, Kier Starmer has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of this amendment. It was tabled by a backbencher and was classed as a free vote which is entirely usual for matters of conscience. If the Conservatives were in government then this would have been handled exactly the same. Starmer didn't even vote for it. Are you going to continue to peddle this falsehood?
Don’t expect facts or perspective to get in the way of a good moral panic
MPs are set to vote next week to decriminalise abortions that take place outside of set rules - in 2023 we found that 52% of Britons agreed that women should not face criminal prosecution in such cases
I think we should just allow women to kill their babies up to the age of, say, two, because erm Feminism and also because it will "annoy rightwingers"
As usual you are being wilfully mischievous.
The Creasey amendment was more troublesome but the passed amendment simply decriminalises the mother. It doesn't allow a clinician induced abortion at full term, which is what you are implying.
The moral issues are complex. You however are making cheap political points.
It is only complex if you have lost leave of your humanity and morality.
Blessed be the fruit
The only mainstream politician in this country I can remember talk willingly about a personal preference for an outright abortion ban is Tim Farron. It is not a view you tend to come across much and isn’t one I take either.
In a stroke however our parliament has just politicised what was a relatively settled issue in this country. But go ahead with your insults taken from crap cable tv.
It clearly wasn’t settled as over 50% of people favour the change it seems. Everything is political.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
This is the sort of law that is going to have all sorts of unintended consequences.
One consequence being that any future Reform or Conservative government might reduce the legal time for abortions.
Though I doubt the people in favour of this law were bothered about consequences as opposed to doing some virtue signalling cosplay.
The thing is that there will always be a chunk of Conservative MPs who will not vote to tighten abortion laws.
So in practice it would need a Con majority of probably at least 60 and maybe even 80 to make any such change. Very unlikely to actually happen in the next say 25 years.
And Boris's majority Government didn't try - and I'm not sure just decriminalising the mother really makes any difference to views on the limit which will still apply in well over 99% of cases.
However notice all the Gazan Independents voting with the Conservatives. If in a few decades they became a large block of say 30 to 40 then combined with a Conservative Government then maybe there could be a majority.
What about 300 Reform MPs? That's what the polls suggest, right now, as a very likely GE outcome
MPs are set to vote next week to decriminalise abortions that take place outside of set rules - in 2023 we found that 52% of Britons agreed that women should not face criminal prosecution in such cases
MPs are set to vote next week to decriminalise abortions that take place outside of set rules - in 2023 we found that 52% of Britons agreed that women should not face criminal prosecution in such cases
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, they aren't. The amendment voted only applies only to the pregnant woman.
To move the following clause — “Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”
Opinions are sharply divided on this, but you should be clear on what the change actually is.
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
As I have already pointed out in reply to you, Kier Starmer has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of this amendment. It was tabled by a backbencher and was classed as a free vote which is entirely usual for matters of conscience. If the Conservatives were in government then this would have been handled exactly the same. Starmer didn't even vote for it. Are you going to continue to peddle this falsehood?
Yes, because it is not a falsehood
This is Starmerism. He makes space for this kind of evil shit, his existence as leader allows it to happen, because he approves. See the State Assisted Suicide Act
That's not true though. There was absolutely nothing he could have done to stop that amendment being tabled. He didn't even vote for it. You just want to use lies and misinformation to sew seeds of hatred and mistrust whilst dressing yourself up in a moral cloak. Why don't you actually say what he should have done to prevent that amendment being passed?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, not allowed. Just the woman herself isn’t committing a crime as far as I understand it. A bit like how we handle prostitution.
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ?
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
The Police could do their jobs and investigate I guess.
Plod: Who carried out the abortion ? Mother: I did. Plod: Did anyone help you ? Mother: No.
End of investigation.
What happens if the woman dies during the process?
I think we should just allow women to kill their babies up to the age of, say, two, because erm Feminism and also because it will "annoy rightwingers"
As usual you are being wilfully mischievous.
The Creasey amendment was more troublesome but the passed amendment simply decriminalises the mother. It doesn't allow a clinician induced abortion at full term, which is what you are implying.
The moral issues are complex. You however are making cheap political points.
It is only complex if you have lost leave of your humanity and morality.
Blessed be the fruit
The only mainstream politician in this country I can remember talk willingly about a personal preference for an outright abortion ban is Tim Farron. It is not a view you tend to come across much and isn’t one I take either.
In a stroke however our parliament has just politicised what was a relatively settled issue in this country. But go ahead with your insults taken from crap cable tv.
It clearly wasn’t settled as over 50% of people favour the change it seems. Everything is political.
Was this in the Labour Manifesto? I certainly don't remember it
If it was, I might be mollified, but my strong suspicion is that this made no appearance whatsoever, Labour have just shunted this odious, pro-death bill through the Commons, because they have a big majority on 32% of the vote and they are morally diseased
But wait, I will quickly check
Ah yes
"Abortion – The Labour Party makes no explicit mention of abortion in its manifesto. Labour does say it “will prioritise women’s health as we reform the NHS”."
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Quite
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
It seems as though Starmer sees it as his defining purpose as PM to get this sort of thing onto the statue book.
Yes
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
As I have already pointed out in reply to you, Kier Starmer has absolutely nothing to do with the passing of this amendment. It was tabled by a backbencher and was classed as a free vote which is entirely usual for matters of conscience. If the Conservatives were in government then this would have been handled exactly the same. Starmer didn't even vote for it. Are you going to continue to peddle this falsehood?
Yes, because it is not a falsehood
This is Starmerism. He makes space for this kind of evil shit, his existence as leader allows it to happen, because he approves. See the State Assisted Suicide Act
That's not true though. There was absolutely nothing he could have done to stop that amendment being tabled. He didn't even vote for it. You just want to use lies and misinformation to sew seeds of hatred and mistrust whilst dressing yourself up in a moral cloak. Why don't you actually say what he should have done to prevent that amendment being passed?
Totally shocking and irresponsible decision, there are sound medical reasons for the abortion limit of 24 weeks. Where was the debate and conversation with the public?
Not really. That term limit still exists I think? Just a woman cannot be prosecuted for terminating her own baby after the limit. I assume medical professionals still can’t perform abortions after that point?
So back street abortions are now allowed but those performed in a proper medical setting aren't.
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
No, they aren't. The amendment voted only applies only to the pregnant woman.
To move the following clause — “Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”
Opinions are sharply divided on this, but you should be clear on what the change actually is.
So I'll repeat the question I asked earlier:
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ? The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
Comments
Personally I’d believe a fair few things if my livelihood depended on it.
I’m sure the post overthrow planning will be up to the usual western standard
I'm not convinced by the practicality of Israel and/or Trump advising people to leave Tehran.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Pahlavi,_Crown_Prince_of_Iran
I think, given the ineptitude of the west on previous regime changes this one (assuming it happens) will be just as inept.
This is a longstanding way of assessing military deployments and it applies here with US force maneuvered. If anyone, however, could disprove it, its Trump. The problem is he has potentially cornered himself as well as Iran if this is pressure without intent.
It's not just what is coming into theater, it's what is moving within it that you need to watch.
For: 379
Against : 137
Majority: 242
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2le12114j9o
Division list:
https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/2058
Just curious.
2 So what? Realpolitik Facts On The Ground and all that.
As TSE will know, lawyers look for loopholes, my existence is based on finding loopholes and alternative ways of doing things, apparently insurance companies aren’t averse to looking for the odd loophole to avoid a payout (clearly not in RCS’s case).
Surely it can’t be the case that anything online viewed in the UK is subject to that law, just UK entities? I’m sure you guys have gamed this but of all sites, and all people who,love this site, we can’t just sit and take a massive restriction on freedom to discuss and argue such contentious issues that will arise in life?
Obvs Guido is rarely an example but I remember back in the day how he based Guido in Ireland to be outside certain reporting restrictions.
There are things on the othe PB and CDAN which would be dodgy under UK law but outside jurisdiction.
Would love to know if you guys have considered moving whatever needs to be moved or if it’s otherwise too problematic.
Thanks v much.
https://pressgazette.co.uk/media_law/dale-vince-libel-guido-fawkes/
in the event they were directly involved he'd not need congressional approval to demand an unconditional surrender or to sabre rattle by threatening the supreme leader.
In the tradition of Husayn ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husayn_ibn_Ali
It's not as though the US has the capacity to occupy Iran, or even a portion of it.
Or China were to decide to take the opportunity of the USN being otherwise engaged, to occupy Taiwan ?
Right on cue !!
https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1935042000598053338?s=61
But if that is the only way you guys are able to win a debate with me, and this pleases you, knock yerselves out
Perhaps we deserve to die as a civilisation. Perhaps we deserve what is coming our way
Please keep up the good work though, nobody here wants to get the site into trouble but we all get a bit lively about certain topics and it must be very hard balancing free speech and not being bummed in prison so thank you.
Let's hope this is just an overnight repair. Rakewood going the way of Ouse Bridge whilst TPE upgrade is going on would be very, very bad.
https://nationalhighways.co.uk/m62-greater-manchester-westbound-lane-closures-infrastructure-defect-between-j22-and-j21/
The front line of the class struggle.
Astonishing the way this has been briskly smuggled past the public. It's such a huge and profound debate, which deserves intense scrutiny, yet suddenly it is rushed into law?
We have become an unserious nation, with comical morality. We can no longer sneer at the Americans, at least they CARE about these fundamental things - eg the rights of the unborn. We just casually toss them in the skip
I despise our political classes, of all stripes. We need rid of them ALL
You tiresome little REDACTED
I'm not sure that's anything to applaud.
And this was the whole point of passing the Antoniazzi amendment rather than the Creasy one.
Which is also why it was supported by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and all major abortion providers.
The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.
He's intensely weird, and a streak of Fabian eugenics runs through his eerily rigid body
Also I think he's accepted he's likely a one term PM who will do nothing for the economy, and probably make everything worse, so THIS will be his legacy - mad inflation of "human rights" (however perversely framed), which befits a human rights lawyer
Is it clear what this means in reality.?
Though I doubt the people in favour of this law were bothered about consequences as opposed to doing some virtue signalling cosplay.
So it's not a case of give and take, is it?
The Creasey amendment was more troublesome but the passed amendment simply decriminalises the mother. It doesn't allow a clinician induced abortion at full term, which is what you are implying.
The moral issues are complex. You however are making cheap political points.
Mother: I did.
Plod: Did anyone help you ?
Mother: No.
End of investigation.
Secondly I’m so relieved it won’t be part of my life to make that decision, I date and have relationships with women who are generally “post-kids” and I don’t want children so it’s never going to be a horrid factor in my life.
Of all people on here you know that you can get into bad situations and have to take drastic actions.
Again, I’m so so glad I will never have to instruct a doctor to “kill” a child but you are intelligent enough to know it’s not that simple.
Otherwise love you loads. X
Records collected by the UK's largest abortion services have found at least 100 women have been investigated for having an abortion in the last five years, and six have appeared in court."
So, if they don't like the new spate of prosecutions, instead of changing the law, how about reversing the previous change?
The previously anonymous operator of an online gossip forum described as a trolls’ paradise has been unmasked after losing a defamation case.
Sebastian Bond, also known as Bastian Durward, has been confirmed as the man behind Tattle Life after an Irish couple successfully sued the publisher, according to reports.
Tattle Life describes itself as a platform for “commentary and critiques of people that choose to monetise their personal life as a business and release it into the public domain”. It attracts up to 12 million visitors monthly, mostly in the UK.
The website has long been criticised for threads of toxic and hate-filled comments. On Friday at the high court of justice in Northern Ireland, Mr Justice Colton confirmed that Bond and two of his firms – Yuzu Zest Limited, a UK-registered company, and Kumquat Tree Limited, registered in Hong Kong – were the publishers of the site, the Journal reported. Bond had been using the name “Helen McDougal” on the website.
Bond, who the court heard used a number of other aliases, is known on the internet as a vegan cooking influencer and author of the book Nest and Glow. The Nest and Glow Instagram account has 135,000 followers.
The plaintiffs in the case were Neil and Donna Sands, who were originally awarded £300,000 damages against the then unknown operators of Tattle Life in late 2023. Donna Sands runs the popular clothing brand Sylkie, while Neil Sands is an AI founder and businessman. The couple were subject to defamation and harassment on the website.
Mr Justice McAlinden said the website was “solely aimed at making profit out of people’s misery”. He said: “This is clearly a case of peddling untruths for profit. People facilitating this are making money out of it … protecting their income streams by protecting the identity of the individual posters.”
After the ruling on Friday, the couple posted a statement on Instagram. It read: “For nearly a decade, the hate site Tattle Life has profited as a space where users could defame, harass, stalk and attack others online – all behind a veil of seeming anonymity.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/jun/17/operator-of-gossip-forum-tattle-life-unmasked-after-losing-defamation-case
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1932705753560646106
Admittedly a bad, very short-term trick. But still.
We need a Constitution like the Americans, and we need it NOW. I hope a radical Reform government might consider this. Total protection of Free Speech. Otherwise it is going to die
So in practice it would need a Con majority of probably at least 60 and maybe even 80 to make any such change. Very unlikely to actually happen in the next say 25 years.
And Boris's majority Government didn't try - and I'm not sure just decriminalising the mother really makes any difference to views on the limit which will still apply in well over 99% of cases.
However notice all the Gazan Independents voting with the Conservatives. If in a few decades they became a large block of say 30 to 40 then combined with a Conservative Government then maybe there could be a majority.
This is Starmerism. He makes space for this kind of evil shit, his existence as leader allows it to happen, because he approves. See the State Assisted Suicide Act
In a stroke however our parliament has just politicised what was a relatively settled issue in this country. But go ahead with your insults taken from crap cable tv.
Now how about asking:
Do you think a backstreet abortion a day before a baby is due to be born should be allowed ?
The amendment voted only applies only to the pregnant woman.
To move the following clause —
“Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”
Opinions are sharply divided on this, but you should be clear on what the change actually is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kvdqUmDlDg
If it was, I might be mollified, but my strong suspicion is that this made no appearance whatsoever, Labour have just shunted this odious, pro-death bill through the Commons, because they have a big majority on 32% of the vote and they are morally diseased
But wait, I will quickly check
Ah yes
"Abortion – The Labour Party makes no explicit mention of abortion in its manifesto. Labour does say it “will prioritise women’s health as we reform the NHS”."
And how could a backstreet abortion be prosecuted ? The mother wouldn't be prosecuted and she wouldn't say that someone had helped here would she.