on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
Voting for murder of a viable foetus until birth with no consequence is nothing to be proud of.
Reform were quite right to vote against as were most Conservatives and Unionists.
Good morning
I am unsure of this change but certainly I assume any abortion will be undertaken by qualified medics
I would also suggest the mothers could have regrets later for the rest of their life
I do not agree with the arbitrary abortion of a child because it is an inconvenience
How this site would have crucified Johnson/Truss/Sunak for that.
Given that pointing & sniggering = crucifixion in right wing victimhood world, I assume you've been in a Tibetan monastery for the last few months and missed the extensive (& often deserved) ‘crucifixion’ of Starmer.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
Is this a real problem? Are there any cases of something like this happening?
Canada has more liberal abortion laws than the new law (if/once passed) in the UK. Is Canada deluged by incidents of this nature? No.
We have had real problems, and those were the inappropriate investigations and prosecutions of women in the UK.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I also draw the line at birth, but I recognise that any line is going to be a bit arbitrary, so I can understand why other people would draw it elsewhere.
Even apparently intransigent and inflexible people and institutions can draw the line at different times on this. I believe that church doctrine used to draw the line at the quickening - roughly the end of the first trimester - and that the current "life begins at conception" doctrine is relatively modern.
But this law change doesn't change where society has drawn the line. It only recognises that someone so desperate as to desire an abortion at such a late stage is someone who needs help, and that criminal conviction doesn't do anything to help society or create deterrence.
I'm not sure why we should spend time and money protecting Israel. What's in it for us? I also don't think that Israel being immune to such attacks is a good thing. Such immunity leads to profoundly immoral results. Look at Gaza. It is probably good that, unlike the last time, the Iron Dome has proven to have a few cracks in it and there are consequences for Israel's actions.
The leadership of Iran are appalling, particularly for Iranians, and I would welcome them gone but I think its generally a matter we should stay out of. There's a lot of things like this. We are not a great power any longer. We need to protect our interests but be much more focused on what those interests are.
There's neither a moral nor a realpolitik reason to support Israel. Israel isn't the good guy requiring protection. It's less important in the region than the collective Arab or Islamic states.
One argument is that demonstrating the ability to defend against ballistic weapons is part of *our* defence posture.
Life testing is expensive - the Iranians are providing targets for free.
Iran is certainly more hostile to us than Isreal is.
As I explained to some of the more fun chaps at UCL*, if you shout “Death To The West” all the time, some Westerners are going to get the impression you are not their best friends.
*Friends of Capn’ Hookhand
It is not difficult to tell the difference between an Iranian with a grudge and a ray of sunshine.
These chaps weren’t (mostly) Iranians. Who, if they came from Iran and were going back, tended to quietly study engineering and physics.
No, this clown show was mostly homegrown. Angry young men who’d rediscovered God. As an angry young man (who’d discovered heavy metal, instead) I kinda related. I was one of the few people who actually talked to them as people. Rather than just shouting them down or trying to ally with them in the style of the Stupid Wankers Party.
I’m amazed you bothered to talk to them at all. They didn’t actually seem to be “for” anything, more anti. Anti western, anti boozing, but they seemed to save their anger most for women, especially any of the girls coming out of certain refectories and cafes who looked “south Asian” who werent modestly dressed, head covered and worse, unchaperoned with a white male.
I found it somewhat odd that they wanted to study at UCL considering its whole foundation was based on it not being religious. I’m sure many students lives would have been improved marginally by the fuckers studying elsewhere that was more in line with their world view, maybe in Saudi or Pakistan.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I also draw the line at birth, but I recognise that any line is going to be a bit arbitrary, so I can understand why other people would draw it elsewhere.
Even apparently intransigent and inflexible people and institutions can draw the line at different times on this. I believe that church doctrine used to draw the line at the quickening - roughly the end of the first trimester - and that the current "life begins at conception" doctrine is relatively modern.
But this law change doesn't change where society has drawn the line. It only recognises that someone so desperate as to desire an abortion at such a late stage is someone who needs help, and that criminal conviction doesn't do anything to help society or create deterrence.
How this site would have crucified Johnson/Truss/Sunak for that.
Given that pointing & sniggering = crucifixion in right wing victimhood world, I assume you've been in a Tibetan monastery for the last few months and missed the extensive (& often deserved) ‘crucifixion’ of Starmer.
Starmer (who does appear out of his depth at present) was for years pilloried for his awkwardness against the inch-perfect genius that was Boris Johnson. The unfavourable comparison continued from Starmer's election as LOTO to the other side of Currygate.
Remember the narrative on here when Boris was unfairly ambushed by a cake at home whilst Starmer was living it up on lager and curry (Sir Beer Korma) during mid- lockdown.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
We don't have a mutual defence treaty, our armies do not conduct joint exercises, we do not train their officers in Sandhurst.
IASF Ra'am and Baz came over to Waddo duff up Crab Air for a three week exercise in 2019. There's probably been others.
They are not allies in the normal sense though. The UK just has to honk them off whenever the US says so.
Thank you
(for those who do not speak Dura_Ace: personnel from the Israeli Air Force came to RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire for a three-week exercise with the RAF in 2019. Although no formal alliance exists, the UK feels that it would be a good idea to assist the State of Israel alongside the United States)
The misinformation -fake-news- alternative -facts narrative over the abortion vote last night has been an astonishing low by some posters on Politicalbetting.com.
The abortion debate has complex morality issues which are not for me to criticise, however I think I am entitled to call out the absolute untruthful rubbish that was posted on here last night over the vote itself and what it all meant from a legal perspective.
Many of our more guarded and thoughtful posters seem to have retired injured over a whole range of subjects.
Mr. Pete, I'm only half-here, but it'd be useful to post the specifics of what your view is and why you think others are wrong.
Radio Five Live is discussing this website, which I'd never heard of before.
"The creator of Tattle Life could face a raft of new lawsuits from stars defamed on his website after he was unmasked as the King of Trolls, experts told MailOnline today. Vegan influencer Sebastian Bond, 43, was exposed after a couple won a £300,000 libel payout over vile claims posted about them on the so-called 'trolls' paradise', which he quietly founded eight years ago. Tattle Life became an unchecked breeding ground for bullying, ‘doxxing’ and outright lies."
I'm familiar with the case of one person who was "documented" there - Jack Monroe. The bits I have seen have been about embarrassing detail and exposing hypocrisy - much of which is often true but the subject may wish to have out of the public gaze. In the JM case for example there was stuff about family background and behaviour, which did not quite match up to the portrayed public image. I'll say no more detail.
Probably well-described as tittle-tattle, or perhaps gossip including some malicious gossip. Think of it as content about individuals that in the political universe might be on Guido Fawkes or Popbitch.
I think Guido just lost too, did he not - where his 'my site is libel proof' claim went slightly pop ?
I see that the lawyers involved are Carter-Ruck.
Reflecting further, I'd quite like to see the judgement, because I'm not sure where we are on defamation law now & "truth" as a strong defence.
Tattle is a mixture of the true but embarrassing, the questionable - "himmm, is that true?", and the made up. The difficulty for the site owners is that they have some liability themselves (I'm not sure what that extent is, either), and curating a Wild West is difficult.
In some ways it is like running a Tabloid Newspaper, but with anonymous authors and without the resources to manage it effectively.
Are there perhaps implications for Twitter, where Musk & Co have arguably posted plenty of material that is imaginary.
There are also issues around internet regulation. Does the Online Safety Bill have anything relevant to say?
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes but serious assault - long sentence.
On your second point, context would be key in my view. The events of yesterday would still render the prospective father liable for prosecution, of course. Speaking personally and being honest with you I could envisage arguing that in tragic circumstances where helping a partner abort, with her will and without any form of coercion, should be excused from prosecution. Depends on the case.
The misinformation -fake-news- alternative -facts narrative over the abortion vote last night has been an astonishing low by some posters on Politicalbetting.com.
The abortion debate has complex morality issues which are not for me to criticise, however I think I am entitled to call out the absolute untruthful rubbish that was posted on here last night over the vote itself and what it all meant from a legal perspective.
Many of our more guarded and thoughtful posters seem to have retired injured over a whole range of subjects.
Mr. Pete, I'm only half-here, but it'd be useful to post the specifics of what your view is and why you think others are wrong.
I think I have Morris.
Certainly last evening @TSE posted two informative pieces which explained in chapter and verse what the vote conducted yesterday evening meant in terms of legal jeopardy for both the mother (or lack thereof) and other stakeholders.
These details were then largely ignored by a number of posters, especially the disingenuous cheerleader.
Am I missing something? In the video he only shakes one person's hand, who appears to be the president, based on photos and captions further down the page.
They clearly have no idea where to stand (apparently don't recognise their own flags) and it's all very awkward, but shaking the interpreter's hand doesn't seem to be on camera.
ETA: Anyway, why not shake the interpreter's hand? Safe option - hand shaking might be a very rude gesture in S Korea, so maybe you shake the interpreter's hand, and he translates it into slapping the president in the face in traditional S Korean greeting, thus avoiding a diplomatic incident?
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
A minor assault charge?
No major - answered below. The harm to the other woman is extreme.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
Yes, who can forget Israel offering military support to retake the Falklands or their vocal support on multiple foreign policy decisions.
Israel are not our “ally”. We have areas of foreign policy where our interests meet, we have an ingrained reflexive protective feeling for a Jewish State after the horrors of WW2 but that’s really it.
We have significant cooperation in the areas you mention because it’s in our interests, not any great sense of love and support for each other.
More often than not Israel’s actions cause geopolitical problems that conflict with our aims or needs or wishes.
I’m very pro Israel but unfortunately the Israel I am pro is not the current incarnation with so much power in the hands of extremists. But they aren’t our “ally”.
Israel is an informal ally and only because along with the US the three nations are opposed to Iran. When the Iranians burn flags it's Israel, US and UK flags that get burned. Whether we like it or not Iran despises the UK and that means we should support Israel in their efforts against Iran, though probably with intelligence rather than hard military assets.
Israel has pursued an openly independent foreign policy line over the last few years, notably on Ukraine, which it has done very little to support (despite the obvious parallels and Iran's links to Russia).
I see no good reason to give Israel anything at the moment, particularly given how they're carrying on in Gaza and the West Bank. FWIW, I do think their current operation against Iran is justified given both Iran's failure to adhere to its previous commitments on nuclear development, and its open support for Hamas and Hezbollah prior to the Oct 7 attacks. But that's Israel's war, not ours.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
If it’s just an object could a man contract to require destruction in the event of pregnancy? With harsh terms for non-compliance?
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
Personally, I consider such a view to be inhumane and a door to a very dangerous path on other human rights.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
A minor assault charge?
No major - answered below. The harm to the other woman is extreme.
But, the destruction of the other woman’s child is of no account?
Would you expect the other woman to agree that no crime had been committed against her child?
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
If it’s just an object could a man contract to require destruction in the event of pregnancy? With harsh terms for non-compliance?
What if a man says to a woman at 39 weeks, about to give birth tomorrow, “I’ll give you £10k if you abort this entirely viable baby”?
And the woman agrees and does it?
By your reckoning the woman has committed no crime. Because the baby has zero rights
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
If it’s just an object could a man contract to require destruction in the event of pregnancy? With harsh terms for non-compliance?
What if a man says to a woman at 39 weeks, about to give birth tomorrow, “I’ll give you £10k if you abort this entirely viable baby”?
And the woman agrees and does it?
By your reckoning the woman has committed no crime. Because the baby has zero rights
There will be parts of the internet where that would work as a pay-per-view business.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
A case that I would welcome comment on, from whatever view. A man's wheelchair was confiscated by the police for 3 weeks and kept in the vehicle pound. Without it he was not comfortably mobile, even within his own home. It took some heavy intervention to shift the police stance.
The core issues are around the regulatory hole between tricycle, wheelchairs and mobility scooters, and which category a clip-on hand cycle fits into, the police being ill-informed / officious, and the failure of Governments to keep regulations up to date. Using a clip-on handcycle (manual or battery) can double or treble autonomous travel radius for a wheelchair user - maybe to 8-15 miles in any direction. This has been a campaign issue for a few years.
My photo today is the one at the bottom, which is a manual wheelchair with a clip-on handcycle attachment, as you can see.
Police impound disabled man's wheelchair for 3 weeks
A severely disabled man from New Cross was left housebound and completely dependent on friends and family, while he appealed to police to release his wheelchair from Charlton Vehicle Pound. ... When Vidal woke up in hospital, he was told that the police had confiscated his wheelchair.
It took three weeks of appeals and lobbying from Vidal, his family, his GP, hospital medics and eventually advocacy groups before he got it back.
Vidal is paraplegic with complex health needs and has a specially adapted, manual wheelchair. It has an option to attach a wheel at the front, this can be manually operated as a "hand bike", or with different attachments, operated as an electric bike. The attachments are designed to be easily clipped on and off.
On this occasion, Vidal had clipped a battery-powered electric bike attachment onto his wheelchair. He explained that he has used the electric bike attachment for years, travelled extensively with it, including through airports, and that he believed it was legal. https://www.salamandernews.org/police-impound-disabled-mans-wheelchair-3-weeks/
Genuine question - could the abortion issue not have been resolved in a much less politically charged way by updating charging guidelines?
I.e - in taking a decision to prosecute, attention has to be paid to the emotional state of the woman at the time and in the majority of cases prosecutions would not be advisable based on the very vulnerable position she is likely to have found herself in?
Afghan national who risked his life helping the American troops in Afghanistan for 3 years has been taken by ICE in San Diego. He is in the US legally. If he is deported to Afghanistan, the Taliban will surely execute him. https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1935208800954540317
Only 35% of people in Poland say they have confidence in Donald Trump to do the right thing in world affairs compared to 75% who had confidence in Joe Biden a year ago.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
It really has flushed out what a lot of people think. But it's shameful that the MPs didn't have the backbone to legislate for it as they truly see it. As it is, this puts women in danger.
Genuine question - could the abortion issue not have been resolved in a much less politically charged way by updating charging guidelines?
I.e - in taking a decision to prosecute, attention has to be paid to the emotional state of the woman at the time and in the majority of cases prosecutions would not be advisable based on the very vulnerable position she is likely to have found herself in?
Perhaps I am splitting hairs.
I think that would have been a bad move. If the law isn't to be enforced then it shouldn't be law. (On which point, the existing abortion law could have done with amending to put the de facto right to abortion on a de jure footing)
But I do think that such a major change should not have come off the back of an amendment with minimal public or political debate in advance. Compare the amount of time and attention given to this vote with that when the limit was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks (which was a less significant change).
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
If it’s just an object could a man contract to require destruction in the event of pregnancy? With harsh terms for non-compliance?
What if a man says to a woman at 39 weeks, about to give birth tomorrow, “I’ll give you £10k if you abort this entirely viable baby”?
And the woman agrees and does it?
By your reckoning the woman has committed no crime. Because the baby has zero rights
Genuine question - could the abortion issue not have been resolved in a much less politically charged way by updating charging guidelines?
I.e - in taking a decision to prosecute, attention has to be paid to the emotional state of the woman at the time and in the majority of cases prosecutions would not be advisable based on the very vulnerable position she is likely to have found herself in?
Perhaps I am splitting hairs.
I think that would have been a bad move. If the law isn't to be enforced then it shouldn't be law. (On which point, the existing abortion law could have done with amending to put the de facto right to abortion on a de jure footing)
But I do think that such a major change should not have come off the back of an amendment with minimal public or political debate in advance. Compare the amount of time and attention given to this vote with that when the limit was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks (which was a less significant change).
Is that not how is it (de facto) dealt with on a wide variety of issues though? I.e the CPS look at the circumstances and make a public interest judgement.
Whether that should be the position, perhaps an interesting debate.
Afghan national who risked his life helping the American troops in Afghanistan for 3 years has been taken by ICE in San Diego. He is in the US legally. If he is deported to Afghanistan, the Taliban will surely execute him. https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1935208800954540317
This is obviously Biden’s fault for carrying through Trump’s disastrous Afghanistan withdrawal plan.
Almost certain there will be MAGA goons polishing up this line.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
Yes, who can forget Israel offering military support to retake the Falklands or their vocal support on multiple foreign policy decisions.
Israel are not our “ally”. We have areas of foreign policy where our interests meet, we have an ingrained reflexive protective feeling for a Jewish State after the horrors of WW2 but that’s really it.
We have significant cooperation in the areas you mention because it’s in our interests, not any great sense of love and support for each other.
More often than not Israel’s actions cause geopolitical problems that conflict with our aims or needs or wishes.
I’m very pro Israel but unfortunately the Israel I am pro is not the current incarnation with so much power in the hands of extremists. But they aren’t our “ally”.
Israel is an informal ally and only because along with the US the three nations are opposed to Iran. When the Iranians burn flags it's Israel, US and UK flags that get burned. Whether we like it or not Iran despises the UK and that means we should support Israel in their efforts against Iran, though probably with intelligence rather than hard military assets.
Israel has pursued an openly independent foreign policy line over the last few years, notably on Ukraine, which it has done very little to support (despite the obvious parallels and Iran's links to Russia).
I see no good reason to give Israel anything at the moment, particularly given how they're carrying on in Gaza and the West Bank. FWIW, I do think their current operation against Iran is justified given both Iran's failure to adhere to its previous commitments on nuclear development, and its open support for Hamas and Hezbollah prior to the Oct 7 attacks. But that's Israel's war, not ours.
Israel is a democracy. Given the struggles they democracy currently has, and the way it is being pushed back in numerous countries, I think Britain has a general interest in being on the side of a democracy - whatever its imperfections - when it is in conflict with a theocracy.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Genuine question - could the abortion issue not have been resolved in a much less politically charged way by updating charging guidelines?
I.e - in taking a decision to prosecute, attention has to be paid to the emotional state of the woman at the time and in the majority of cases prosecutions would not be advisable based on the very vulnerable position she is likely to have found herself in?
Perhaps I am splitting hairs.
You'd think so (although that would still warrant some police investigation, whereas if abortion is blanket legal for the mother then the question never arises - although as proponents of the Creasy amendment argued, the mother might still be questioned as part of investigation into others).
I don't think the criminal justice system is the right way to handle most of these cases - and so have some sympathy with the amendment (less with Creasy's) but I do have concerns that this could de-criminalise a few cases where the mother definitely should face proceedings, but perhaps those would be covered by other laws.
The existing law is a bit of a legal mess, but seemed to get the balance largely correct, including (in the end, on sentence appeal) in the Foster case, where I think investigation was appropriate and she was guilty but should not have been given a custodial sentence.
Genuine question - could the abortion issue not have been resolved in a much less politically charged way by updating charging guidelines?
I.e - in taking a decision to prosecute, attention has to be paid to the emotional state of the woman at the time and in the majority of cases prosecutions would not be advisable based on the very vulnerable position she is likely to have found herself in?
Perhaps I am splitting hairs.
I think that would have been a bad move. If the law isn't to be enforced then it shouldn't be law..
That ignores that cases - which are part of what prompted this piece of legislation - where miscarriages which involved no action at all by the woman in question were subject to intrusive criminal investigation by the police.
An update to guideline might have made a real difference there.
From what I've seen of the debate, though, there doesn't appear to be a simple answer which will satisfy the very strongly held opinions on both sides of the issue.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
Yes, who can forget Israel offering military support to retake the Falklands or their vocal support on multiple foreign policy decisions.
Israel are not our “ally”. We have areas of foreign policy where our interests meet, we have an ingrained reflexive protective feeling for a Jewish State after the horrors of WW2 but that’s really it.
We have significant cooperation in the areas you mention because it’s in our interests, not any great sense of love and support for each other.
More often than not Israel’s actions cause geopolitical problems that conflict with our aims or needs or wishes.
I’m very pro Israel but unfortunately the Israel I am pro is not the current incarnation with so much power in the hands of extremists. But they aren’t our “ally”.
Israel is an informal ally and only because along with the US the three nations are opposed to Iran. When the Iranians burn flags it's Israel, US and UK flags that get burned. Whether we like it or not Iran despises the UK and that means we should support Israel in their efforts against Iran, though probably with intelligence rather than hard military assets.
Israel has pursued an openly independent foreign policy line over the last few years, notably on Ukraine, which it has done very little to support (despite the obvious parallels and Iran's links to Russia).
I see no good reason to give Israel anything at the moment, particularly given how they're carrying on in Gaza and the West Bank. FWIW, I do think their current operation against Iran is justified given both Iran's failure to adhere to its previous commitments on nuclear development, and its open support for Hamas and Hezbollah prior to the Oct 7 attacks. But that's Israel's war, not ours.
Israel is a democracy. Given the struggles they democracy currently has, and the way it is being pushed back in numerous countries, I think Britain has a general interest in being on the side of a democracy - whatever its imperfections - when it is in conflict with a theocracy.
That is a principle I would support were Israel not in the process of starving 2m people in Gaza and shelling those who do come forward for food. There are limits.
If Israel wants more support, it needs to behave like a member of the civilized world. it could also help its cause by being more supportive itself of other countries invaded and bullied by larger neighbours, viz Ukraine.
Genuine question - could the abortion issue not have been resolved in a much less politically charged way by updating charging guidelines?
I.e - in taking a decision to prosecute, attention has to be paid to the emotional state of the woman at the time and in the majority of cases prosecutions would not be advisable based on the very vulnerable position she is likely to have found herself in?
Perhaps I am splitting hairs.
What you are suggesting is individuality, compassion, decency and discretion.
Humanity, really.
The problem is that the worshippers of The Process State demand a one-size-fits-all linear rule book. Which is utterly incompatible with such an approach.
In addition, discretion is treated with horror by the police etc.
Genuine question - could the abortion issue not have been resolved in a much less politically charged way by updating charging guidelines?
I.e - in taking a decision to prosecute, attention has to be paid to the emotional state of the woman at the time and in the majority of cases prosecutions would not be advisable based on the very vulnerable position she is likely to have found herself in?
Perhaps I am splitting hairs.
You'd think so (although that would still warrant some police investigation, whereas if abortion is blanket legal for the mother then the question never arises - although as proponents of the Creasy amendment argued, the mother might still be questioned as part of investigation into others).
I don't think the criminal justice system is the right way to handle most of these cases - and so have some sympathy with the amendment (less with Creasy's) but I do have concerns that this could de-criminalise a few cases where the mother definitely should face proceedings, but perhaps those would be covered by other laws.
The existing law is a bit of a legal mess, but seemed to get the balance largely correct, including (in the end, on sentence appeal) in the Foster case, where I think investigation was appropriate and she was guilty but should not have been given a custodial sentence.
I think this is exactly the point - yes the law should treat vulnerable people fairly and with sensitivity - but the point of having the law in the first place is to telegraph to people that the action is wrong, for reasons for deterrence etc.
Afghan national who risked his life helping the American troops in Afghanistan for 3 years has been taken by ICE in San Diego. He is in the US legally. If he is deported to Afghanistan, the Taliban will surely execute him. https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1935208800954540317
Afghan national who risked his life helping the American troops in Afghanistan for 3 years has been taken by ICE in San Diego. He is in the US legally. If he is deported to Afghanistan, the Taliban will surely execute him. https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1935208800954540317
I don't think we have mentioned it here, but the other day they detained the Comptroller of New York, who is roughly a Chief Financial Officer regulator type figure in the civil administration, when he asked ICE if they had a Judicial Warrant to arrest a man whom they had intercepted inside a Court building.
ICE are still detaining individuals, ignoring their rights, and trying to rush them out of the country before anyone can do anything - whilst their cases are still in process.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
Yes, who can forget Israel offering military support to retake the Falklands or their vocal support on multiple foreign policy decisions.
Israel are not our “ally”. We have areas of foreign policy where our interests meet, we have an ingrained reflexive protective feeling for a Jewish State after the horrors of WW2 but that’s really it.
We have significant cooperation in the areas you mention because it’s in our interests, not any great sense of love and support for each other.
More often than not Israel’s actions cause geopolitical problems that conflict with our aims or needs or wishes.
I’m very pro Israel but unfortunately the Israel I am pro is not the current incarnation with so much power in the hands of extremists. But they aren’t our “ally”.
Israel is an informal ally and only because along with the US the three nations are opposed to Iran. When the Iranians burn flags it's Israel, US and UK flags that get burned. Whether we like it or not Iran despises the UK and that means we should support Israel in their efforts against Iran, though probably with intelligence rather than hard military assets.
Israel has pursued an openly independent foreign policy line over the last few years, notably on Ukraine, which it has done very little to support (despite the obvious parallels and Iran's links to Russia).
I see no good reason to give Israel anything at the moment, particularly given how they're carrying on in Gaza and the West Bank. FWIW, I do think their current operation against Iran is justified given both Iran's failure to adhere to its previous commitments on nuclear development, and its open support for Hamas and Hezbollah prior to the Oct 7 attacks. But that's Israel's war, not ours.
Israel is a democracy. Given the struggles they democracy currently has, and the way it is being pushed back in numerous countries, I think Britain has a general interest in being on the side of a democracy - whatever its imperfections - when it is in conflict with a theocracy.
That is a principle I would support were Israel not in the process of starving 2m people in Gaza and shelling those who do come forward for food. There are limits.
If Israel wants more support, it needs to behave like a member of the civilized world. it could also help its cause by being more supportive itself of other countries invaded and bullied by larger neighbours, viz Ukraine.
If Trump were a real dealmaker, he would let Israel have the bunker-buster bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear underground facilities - in exchange for lifting the medieval siege of Gaza.
Genuine question - could the abortion issue not have been resolved in a much less politically charged way by updating charging guidelines?
I.e - in taking a decision to prosecute, attention has to be paid to the emotional state of the woman at the time and in the majority of cases prosecutions would not be advisable based on the very vulnerable position she is likely to have found herself in?
Perhaps I am splitting hairs.
I think that would have been a bad move. If the law isn't to be enforced then it shouldn't be law. (On which point, the existing abortion law could have done with amending to put the de facto right to abortion on a de jure footing)
But I do think that such a major change should not have come off the back of an amendment with minimal public or political debate in advance. Compare the amount of time and attention given to this vote with that when the limit was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks (which was a less significant change).
Is that not how is it (de facto) dealt with on a wide variety of issues though? I.e the CPS look at the circumstances and make a public interest judgement.
Whether that should be the position, perhaps an interesting debate.
At the extremes there may be a public interest case for not prosecuting a clear crime for which the evidence is available but I would not want that to become routine; it undermines the whole basis of what the law is.
This morning I visited the wonderful Pink Lane bakery and had a sensational cheese and jalapeño bagel. Enjoying a glass of wine in fenwicks before a trip for more wine in grainger market.
The wines in Fenwicks were pouilly-fine and mandrarossa grillo. Both nice.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
This morning I visited the wonderful Pink Lane bakery and had a sensational cheese and jalapeño bagel. Enjoying a glass of wine in fenwicks before a trip for more wine in grainger market.
The wines in Fenwicks were pouilly-fine and mandrarossa grillo. Both nice.
Life is short. Enjoy it.
I've spent 3 days of my life in Newcastle upon Tyne which is regrettable because it seemed like a really interesting place when I was there.
Radio Five Live is discussing this website, which I'd never heard of before.
"The creator of Tattle Life could face a raft of new lawsuits from stars defamed on his website after he was unmasked as the King of Trolls, experts told MailOnline today. Vegan influencer Sebastian Bond, 43, was exposed after a couple won a £300,000 libel payout over vile claims posted about them on the so-called 'trolls' paradise', which he quietly founded eight years ago. Tattle Life became an unchecked breeding ground for bullying, ‘doxxing’ and outright lies."
I'm familiar with the case of one person who was "documented" there - Jack Monroe. The bits I have seen have been about embarrassing detail and exposing hypocrisy - much of which is often true but the subject may wish to have out of the public gaze. In the JM case for example there was stuff about family background and behaviour, which did not quite match up to the portrayed public image. I'll say no more detail.
Probably well-described as tittle-tattle, or perhaps gossip including some malicious gossip. Think of it as content about individuals that in the political universe might be on Guido Fawkes or Popbitch.
I think Guido just lost too, did he not - where his 'my site is libel proof' claim went slightly pop ?
I see that the lawyers involved are Carter-Ruck.
Reflecting further, I'd quite like to see the judgement, because I'm not sure where we are on defamation law now & "truth" as a strong defence.
Tattle is a mixture of the true but embarrassing, the questionable - "himmm, is that true?", and the made up. The difficulty for the site owners is that they have some liability themselves (I'm not sure what that extent is, either), and curating a Wild West is difficult.
In some ways it is like running a Tabloid Newspaper, but with anonymous authors and without the resources to manage it effectively.
Are there perhaps implications for Twitter, where Musk & Co have arguably posted plenty of material that is imaginary.
There are also issues around internet regulation. Does the Online Safety Bill have anything relevant to say?
Tattle is very, very entertaining. I'm not a member, registration was closed years ago, and I wouldn't join anyway, just because it is absolutely the wild west. Some of things you read make your toes curl, and the way that social media influences are called out/ debunked is how I found the site- trying to find out how legit some people I followed were. I'm not surprised it's in trouble. The Carter Ruck bod is called Persephone Bridgman Baker. That's the sort of name that I look for in a barrister. Never trust a legal eagle with a boring name.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
Yes, who can forget Israel offering military support to retake the Falklands or their vocal support on multiple foreign policy decisions.
Israel are not our “ally”. We have areas of foreign policy where our interests meet, we have an ingrained reflexive protective feeling for a Jewish State after the horrors of WW2 but that’s really it.
We have significant cooperation in the areas you mention because it’s in our interests, not any great sense of love and support for each other.
More often than not Israel’s actions cause geopolitical problems that conflict with our aims or needs or wishes.
I’m very pro Israel but unfortunately the Israel I am pro is not the current incarnation with so much power in the hands of extremists. But they aren’t our “ally”.
Israel is an informal ally and only because along with the US the three nations are opposed to Iran. When the Iranians burn flags it's Israel, US and UK flags that get burned. Whether we like it or not Iran despises the UK and that means we should support Israel in their efforts against Iran, though probably with intelligence rather than hard military assets.
Israel has pursued an openly independent foreign policy line over the last few years, notably on Ukraine, which it has done very little to support (despite the obvious parallels and Iran's links to Russia).
I see no good reason to give Israel anything at the moment, particularly given how they're carrying on in Gaza and the West Bank. FWIW, I do think their current operation against Iran is justified given both Iran's failure to adhere to its previous commitments on nuclear development, and its open support for Hamas and Hezbollah prior to the Oct 7 attacks. But that's Israel's war, not ours.
Israel is a democracy. Given the struggles they democracy currently has, and the way it is being pushed back in numerous countries, I think Britain has a general interest in being on the side of a democracy - whatever its imperfections - when it is in conflict with a theocracy.
That is a principle I would support were Israel not in the process of starving 2m people in Gaza and shelling those who do come forward for food. There are limits.
If Israel wants more support, it needs to behave like a member of the civilized world. it could also help its cause by being more supportive itself of other countries invaded and bullied by larger neighbours, viz Ukraine.
If Trump were a real dealmaker, he would let Israel have the bunker-buster bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear underground facilities - in exchange for lifting the medieval siege of Gaza.
That he hasn't...
What use would they be to Israel without the heavy bombers (like the B2) required to carry them ?
They have US bunker busters, which they've used extensively in Gaza, but they don't have the capacity to hit the really deep facilities like Fordow.
This morning I visited the wonderful Pink Lane bakery and had a sensational cheese and jalapeño bagel. Enjoying a glass of wine in fenwicks before a trip for more wine in grainger market.
The wines in Fenwicks were pouilly-fine and mandrarossa grillo. Both nice.
Life is short. Enjoy it.
I've spent 3 days of my life in Newcastle upon Tyne which is regrettable because it seemed like a really interesting place when I was there.
It’s magnificent. We were in ouseburn on Saturday and had a great time. There’s so much here. It’s so nice.
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
Yes, who can forget Israel offering military support to retake the Falklands or their vocal support on multiple foreign policy decisions.
Israel are not our “ally”. We have areas of foreign policy where our interests meet, we have an ingrained reflexive protective feeling for a Jewish State after the horrors of WW2 but that’s really it.
We have significant cooperation in the areas you mention because it’s in our interests, not any great sense of love and support for each other.
More often than not Israel’s actions cause geopolitical problems that conflict with our aims or needs or wishes.
I’m very pro Israel but unfortunately the Israel I am pro is not the current incarnation with so much power in the hands of extremists. But they aren’t our “ally”.
Israel is an informal ally and only because along with the US the three nations are opposed to Iran. When the Iranians burn flags it's Israel, US and UK flags that get burned. Whether we like it or not Iran despises the UK and that means we should support Israel in their efforts against Iran, though probably with intelligence rather than hard military assets.
Israel has pursued an openly independent foreign policy line over the last few years, notably on Ukraine, which it has done very little to support (despite the obvious parallels and Iran's links to Russia).
I see no good reason to give Israel anything at the moment, particularly given how they're carrying on in Gaza and the West Bank. FWIW, I do think their current operation against Iran is justified given both Iran's failure to adhere to its previous commitments on nuclear development, and its open support for Hamas and Hezbollah prior to the Oct 7 attacks. But that's Israel's war, not ours.
Israel is a democracy. Given the struggles they democracy currently has, and the way it is being pushed back in numerous countries, I think Britain has a general interest in being on the side of a democracy - whatever its imperfections - when it is in conflict with a theocracy.
That is a principle I would support were Israel not in the process of starving 2m people in Gaza and shelling those who do come forward for food. There are limits.
If Israel wants more support, it needs to behave like a member of the civilized world. it could also help its cause by being more supportive itself of other countries invaded and bullied by larger neighbours, viz Ukraine.
Once, and not too long ago, Israel had diplomats of ability, who saw the need to put their case to sympathetic audiences.
Now, their approach is the Russian/Athenian one. "The strong do as they will, the weak suffer what they must."
Far from being a truism, it's an approach that is stupid, cruel, and eventually, self-defeating.
This morning I visited the wonderful Pink Lane bakery and had a sensational cheese and jalapeño bagel. Enjoying a glass of wine in fenwicks before a trip for more wine in grainger market.
The wines in Fenwicks were pouilly-fine and mandrarossa grillo. Both nice.
Life is short. Enjoy it.
I've spent 3 days of my life in Newcastle upon Tyne which is regrettable because it seemed like a really interesting place when I was there.
It’s magnificent. We were in ouseburn on Saturday and had a great time. There’s so much here. It’s so nice.
My mother, OGH's wife, is from Newcastle, and I spent a lot of my childhood holidays there and absolutely love it.
Radio Five Live is discussing this website, which I'd never heard of before.
"The creator of Tattle Life could face a raft of new lawsuits from stars defamed on his website after he was unmasked as the King of Trolls, experts told MailOnline today. Vegan influencer Sebastian Bond, 43, was exposed after a couple won a £300,000 libel payout over vile claims posted about them on the so-called 'trolls' paradise', which he quietly founded eight years ago. Tattle Life became an unchecked breeding ground for bullying, ‘doxxing’ and outright lies."
I'm familiar with the case of one person who was "documented" there - Jack Monroe. The bits I have seen have been about embarrassing detail and exposing hypocrisy - much of which is often true but the subject may wish to have out of the public gaze. In the JM case for example there was stuff about family background and behaviour, which did not quite match up to the portrayed public image. I'll say no more detail.
Probably well-described as tittle-tattle, or perhaps gossip including some malicious gossip. Think of it as content about individuals that in the political universe might be on Guido Fawkes or Popbitch.
I think Guido just lost too, did he not - where his 'my site is libel proof' claim went slightly pop ?
I see that the lawyers involved are Carter-Ruck.
Reflecting further, I'd quite like to see the judgement, because I'm not sure where we are on defamation law now & "truth" as a strong defence.
Tattle is a mixture of the true but embarrassing, the questionable - "himmm, is that true?", and the made up. The difficulty for the site owners is that they have some liability themselves (I'm not sure what that extent is, either), and curating a Wild West is difficult.
In some ways it is like running a Tabloid Newspaper, but with anonymous authors and without the resources to manage it effectively.
Are there perhaps implications for Twitter, where Musk & Co have arguably posted plenty of material that is imaginary.
There are also issues around internet regulation. Does the Online Safety Bill have anything relevant to say?
Tattle is very, very entertaining. I'm not a member, registration was closed years ago, and I wouldn't join anyway, just because it is absolutely the wild west. Some of things you read make your toes curl, and the way that social media influences are called out/ debunked is how I found the site- trying to find out how legit some people I followed were. I'm not surprised it's in trouble. The Carter Ruck bod is called Persephone Bridgman Baker. That's the sort of name that I look for in a barrister. Never trust a legal eagle with a boring name.
For many years I thought they pronounced it ‘Percy-phone’ rather than ‘per-sef-funny’
Didn’t come across too many Persephones growing up
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
Yes, who can forget Israel offering military support to retake the Falklands or their vocal support on multiple foreign policy decisions.
Israel are not our “ally”. We have areas of foreign policy where our interests meet, we have an ingrained reflexive protective feeling for a Jewish State after the horrors of WW2 but that’s really it.
We have significant cooperation in the areas you mention because it’s in our interests, not any great sense of love and support for each other.
More often than not Israel’s actions cause geopolitical problems that conflict with our aims or needs or wishes.
I’m very pro Israel but unfortunately the Israel I am pro is not the current incarnation with so much power in the hands of extremists. But they aren’t our “ally”.
Israel is an informal ally and only because along with the US the three nations are opposed to Iran. When the Iranians burn flags it's Israel, US and UK flags that get burned. Whether we like it or not Iran despises the UK and that means we should support Israel in their efforts against Iran, though probably with intelligence rather than hard military assets.
Israel has pursued an openly independent foreign policy line over the last few years, notably on Ukraine, which it has done very little to support (despite the obvious parallels and Iran's links to Russia).
I see no good reason to give Israel anything at the moment, particularly given how they're carrying on in Gaza and the West Bank. FWIW, I do think their current operation against Iran is justified given both Iran's failure to adhere to its previous commitments on nuclear development, and its open support for Hamas and Hezbollah prior to the Oct 7 attacks. But that's Israel's war, not ours.
Israel is a democracy. Given the struggles they democracy currently has, and the way it is being pushed back in numerous countries, I think Britain has a general interest in being on the side of a democracy - whatever its imperfections - when it is in conflict with a theocracy.
That is a principle I would support were Israel not in the process of starving 2m people in Gaza and shelling those who do come forward for food. There are limits.
If Israel wants more support, it needs to behave like a member of the civilized world. it could also help its cause by being more supportive itself of other countries invaded and bullied by larger neighbours, viz Ukraine.
If Trump were a real dealmaker, he would let Israel have the bunker-buster bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear underground facilities - in exchange for lifting the medieval siege of Gaza.
That he hasn't...
I'm not sure I agree entirely with that idea, particularly as I don't trust Bibi.
However on a more base level I suspect Trump likes the idea of playing God. Biblical levels of dead people on the turning down of a thumb by an Emperor probably floats his boat.
A case that I would welcome comment on, from whatever view. A man's wheelchair was confiscated by the police for 3 weeks and kept in the vehicle pound. Without it he was not comfortably mobile, even within his own home. It took some heavy intervention to shift the police stance.
The core issues are around the regulatory hole between tricycle, wheelchairs and mobility scooters, and which category a clip-on hand cycle fits into, the police being ill-informed / officious, and the failure of Governments to keep regulations up to date. Using a clip-on handcycle (manual or battery) can double or treble autonomous travel radius for a wheelchair user - maybe to 8-15 miles in any direction. This has been a campaign issue for a few years.
My photo today is the one at the bottom, which is a manual wheelchair with a clip-on handcycle attachment, as you can see.
Police impound disabled man's wheelchair for 3 weeks
A severely disabled man from New Cross was left housebound and completely dependent on friends and family, while he appealed to police to release his wheelchair from Charlton Vehicle Pound. ... When Vidal woke up in hospital, he was told that the police had confiscated his wheelchair.
It took three weeks of appeals and lobbying from Vidal, his family, his GP, hospital medics and eventually advocacy groups before he got it back.
Vidal is paraplegic with complex health needs and has a specially adapted, manual wheelchair. It has an option to attach a wheel at the front, this can be manually operated as a "hand bike", or with different attachments, operated as an electric bike. The attachments are designed to be easily clipped on and off.
On this occasion, Vidal had clipped a battery-powered electric bike attachment onto his wheelchair. He explained that he has used the electric bike attachment for years, travelled extensively with it, including through airports, and that he believed it was legal. https://www.salamandernews.org/police-impound-disabled-mans-wheelchair-3-weeks/
He got nicked because he's a law abiding citizen who was ignorant of the law, so an easy mark for the rozzers. If he was a 19 year old lad in a balaclava pulling a wheelie on a souped up ebike through Loughborough market place, on the way to nick other law abiding citizens' property, the rozzers wouldn't touch him.
What I don’t understand is how this major major change - not approved by the public, not in the Labour manifesto - has been rushed into law with 40 minutes debate on a sleepy Wednesday evening. This is not good
This morning I visited the wonderful Pink Lane bakery and had a sensational cheese and jalapeño bagel. Enjoying a glass of wine in fenwicks before a trip for more wine in grainger market.
The wines in Fenwicks were pouilly-fine and mandrarossa grillo. Both nice.
Life is short. Enjoy it.
I've spent 3 days of my life in Newcastle upon Tyne which is regrettable because it seemed like a really interesting place when I was there.
It’s magnificent. We were in ouseburn on Saturday and had a great time. There’s so much here. It’s so nice.
My mother, OGH's wife, is from Newcastle, and I spent a lot of my childhood holidays there and absolutely love it.
I don’t know when you were last here but, for all the development, for me it’s retained its charm in a way places like Brum haven’t
Are we all in awe of the major event that we would be talking about for centuries that Iran promised yesterday? It appears to have been a few wind up drones and a couple of missiles. There is no way these jokers have WMDs of any type
The best time to go to war is BEFORE a country has WMDs but when they are working towards it.
That is the case with Iran.
They don't have them yet, let's keep it that way!
So, you're saying we should have attacked Israel in 1965?
Considering Israel is our ally, no.
It would have been a better time for their enemies to attack them than afterwards though. Oh wait, they already did . . . and they lost. Oh well, how sad, nevermind.
Israel is not an ally. India is not an ally. We do not have a formal defence arrangement with them, nor do they have a tradition of coming to our aid post independence. People on PB confuse "a good feeling towards its inhabitants" with "ally": the two are not the same.
Israel is an ally of the UK. We may not have a formal arrangement, pace NATO, but we have significant cooperation on defence, security, counter terrorism, technology, military cooperation and more.
We're not treaty bound, but they are our allies.
Yes, who can forget Israel offering military support to retake the Falklands or their vocal support on multiple foreign policy decisions.
Israel are not our “ally”. We have areas of foreign policy where our interests meet, we have an ingrained reflexive protective feeling for a Jewish State after the horrors of WW2 but that’s really it.
We have significant cooperation in the areas you mention because it’s in our interests, not any great sense of love and support for each other.
More often than not Israel’s actions cause geopolitical problems that conflict with our aims or needs or wishes.
I’m very pro Israel but unfortunately the Israel I am pro is not the current incarnation with so much power in the hands of extremists. But they aren’t our “ally”.
Israel is an informal ally and only because along with the US the three nations are opposed to Iran. When the Iranians burn flags it's Israel, US and UK flags that get burned. Whether we like it or not Iran despises the UK and that means we should support Israel in their efforts against Iran, though probably with intelligence rather than hard military assets.
Israel has pursued an openly independent foreign policy line over the last few years, notably on Ukraine, which it has done very little to support (despite the obvious parallels and Iran's links to Russia).
I see no good reason to give Israel anything at the moment, particularly given how they're carrying on in Gaza and the West Bank. FWIW, I do think their current operation against Iran is justified given both Iran's failure to adhere to its previous commitments on nuclear development, and its open support for Hamas and Hezbollah prior to the Oct 7 attacks. But that's Israel's war, not ours.
Israel is a democracy. Given the struggles they democracy currently has, and the way it is being pushed back in numerous countries, I think Britain has a general interest in being on the side of a democracy - whatever its imperfections - when it is in conflict with a theocracy.
That is a principle I would support were Israel not in the process of starving 2m people in Gaza and shelling those who do come forward for food. There are limits.
If Israel wants more support, it needs to behave like a member of the civilized world. it could also help its cause by being more supportive itself of other countries invaded and bullied by larger neighbours, viz Ukraine.
If Trump were a real dealmaker, he would let Israel have the bunker-buster bombs to destroy Iran's nuclear underground facilities - in exchange for lifting the medieval siege of Gaza.
That he hasn't...
What use would they be to Israel without the heavy bombers (like the B2) required to carry them ?
They have US bunker busters, which they've used extensively in Gaza, but they don't have the capacity to hit the really deep facilities like Fordow.
The GBU-57 was designed to the capacity of the B2.
It’s definitely more than the F15I can carry - at least nominally.
A case that I would welcome comment on, from whatever view. A man's wheelchair was confiscated by the police for 3 weeks and kept in the vehicle pound. Without it he was not comfortably mobile, even within his own home. It took some heavy intervention to shift the police stance.
The core issues are around the regulatory hole between tricycle, wheelchairs and mobility scooters, and which category a clip-on hand cycle fits into, the police being ill-informed / officious, and the failure of Governments to keep regulations up to date. Using a clip-on handcycle (manual or battery) can double or treble autonomous travel radius for a wheelchair user - maybe to 8-15 miles in any direction. This has been a campaign issue for a few years.
My photo today is the one at the bottom, which is a manual wheelchair with a clip-on handcycle attachment, as you can see.
Police impound disabled man's wheelchair for 3 weeks
A severely disabled man from New Cross was left housebound and completely dependent on friends and family, while he appealed to police to release his wheelchair from Charlton Vehicle Pound. ... When Vidal woke up in hospital, he was told that the police had confiscated his wheelchair.
It took three weeks of appeals and lobbying from Vidal, his family, his GP, hospital medics and eventually advocacy groups before he got it back.
Vidal is paraplegic with complex health needs and has a specially adapted, manual wheelchair. It has an option to attach a wheel at the front, this can be manually operated as a "hand bike", or with different attachments, operated as an electric bike. The attachments are designed to be easily clipped on and off.
On this occasion, Vidal had clipped a battery-powered electric bike attachment onto his wheelchair. He explained that he has used the electric bike attachment for years, travelled extensively with it, including through airports, and that he believed it was legal. https://www.salamandernews.org/police-impound-disabled-mans-wheelchair-3-weeks/
He got nicked because he's a law abiding citizen who was ignorant of the law, so an easy mark for the rozzers. If he was a 19 year old lad in a balaclava pulling a wheelie on a souped up ebike through Loughborough market place, on the way to nick other law abiding citizens' property, the rozzers wouldn't touch him.
The fact you can clip one wire of a certain model of e-bike and turn it into a 50mph monster should be addressed. This is all done with a nudge nudge wink wink of the manufacturer.
Radio Five Live is discussing this website, which I'd never heard of before.
"The creator of Tattle Life could face a raft of new lawsuits from stars defamed on his website after he was unmasked as the King of Trolls, experts told MailOnline today. Vegan influencer Sebastian Bond, 43, was exposed after a couple won a £300,000 libel payout over vile claims posted about them on the so-called 'trolls' paradise', which he quietly founded eight years ago. Tattle Life became an unchecked breeding ground for bullying, ‘doxxing’ and outright lies."
I'm familiar with the case of one person who was "documented" there - Jack Monroe. The bits I have seen have been about embarrassing detail and exposing hypocrisy - much of which is often true but the subject may wish to have out of the public gaze. In the JM case for example there was stuff about family background and behaviour, which did not quite match up to the portrayed public image. I'll say no more detail.
Probably well-described as tittle-tattle, or perhaps gossip including some malicious gossip. Think of it as content about individuals that in the political universe might be on Guido Fawkes or Popbitch.
I think Guido just lost too, did he not - where his 'my site is libel proof' claim went slightly pop ?
I see that the lawyers involved are Carter-Ruck.
Reflecting further, I'd quite like to see the judgement, because I'm not sure where we are on defamation law now & "truth" as a strong defence.
Tattle is a mixture of the true but embarrassing, the questionable - "himmm, is that true?", and the made up. The difficulty for the site owners is that they have some liability themselves (I'm not sure what that extent is, either), and curating a Wild West is difficult.
In some ways it is like running a Tabloid Newspaper, but with anonymous authors and without the resources to manage it effectively.
Are there perhaps implications for Twitter, where Musk & Co have arguably posted plenty of material that is imaginary.
There are also issues around internet regulation. Does the Online Safety Bill have anything relevant to say?
Tattle is very, very entertaining. I'm not a member, registration was closed years ago, and I wouldn't join anyway, just because it is absolutely the wild west. Some of things you read make your toes curl, and the way that social media influences are called out/ debunked is how I found the site- trying to find out how legit some people I followed were. I'm not surprised it's in trouble. The Carter Ruck bod is called Persephone Bridgman Baker. That's the sort of name that I look for in a barrister. Never trust a legal eagle with a boring name.
John Mortimer came up with Daintry Naismith, and Peregrine Landseer. They'd charge you £1,000 an hour, just for their names alone.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
This morning I visited the wonderful Pink Lane bakery and had a sensational cheese and jalapeño bagel. Enjoying a glass of wine in fenwicks before a trip for more wine in grainger market.
The wines in Fenwicks were pouilly-fine and mandrarossa grillo. Both nice.
Life is short. Enjoy it.
I've spent 3 days of my life in Newcastle upon Tyne which is regrettable because it seemed like a really interesting place when I was there.
It’s magnificent. We were in ouseburn on Saturday and had a great time. There’s so much here. It’s so nice.
My mother, OGH's wife, is from Newcastle, and I spent a lot of my childhood holidays there and absolutely love it.
I don’t know when you were last here but, for all the development, for me it’s retained its charm in a way places like Brum haven’t
It’s also so close to the coast too.
I’d never move back south
I've not been since I moved to LA eight years ago, but used to be up pretty much every year before that. Albeit we'd often rent a cottage in Alnmouth, and wouldn't spend too much time in town.
This morning I visited the wonderful Pink Lane bakery and had a sensational cheese and jalapeño bagel. Enjoying a glass of wine in fenwicks before a trip for more wine in grainger market.
The wines in Fenwicks were pouilly-fine and mandrarossa grillo. Both nice.
Life is short. Enjoy it.
I've spent 3 days of my life in Newcastle upon Tyne which is regrettable because it seemed like a really interesting place when I was there.
It’s magnificent. We were in ouseburn on Saturday and had a great time. There’s so much here. It’s so nice.
My mother, OGH's wife, is from Newcastle, and I spent a lot of my childhood holidays there and absolutely love it.
I don’t know when you were last here but, for all the development, for me it’s retained its charm in a way places like Brum haven’t
It’s also so close to the coast too.
I’d never move back south
I've not been since I moved to LA eight years ago, but used to be up pretty much every year before that. Albeit we'd often rent a cottage in Alnmouth, and wouldn't spend too much time in town.
Alnmouth is a fab place. Like going back in time. We have been a couple of times for a walk, totally unspoiled by progress
A case that I would welcome comment on, from whatever view. A man's wheelchair was confiscated by the police for 3 weeks and kept in the vehicle pound. Without it he was not comfortably mobile, even within his own home. It took some heavy intervention to shift the police stance.
The core issues are around the regulatory hole between tricycle, wheelchairs and mobility scooters, and which category a clip-on hand cycle fits into, the police being ill-informed / officious, and the failure of Governments to keep regulations up to date. Using a clip-on handcycle (manual or battery) can double or treble autonomous travel radius for a wheelchair user - maybe to 8-15 miles in any direction. This has been a campaign issue for a few years.
My photo today is the one at the bottom, which is a manual wheelchair with a clip-on handcycle attachment, as you can see.
Police impound disabled man's wheelchair for 3 weeks
A severely disabled man from New Cross was left housebound and completely dependent on friends and family, while he appealed to police to release his wheelchair from Charlton Vehicle Pound. ... When Vidal woke up in hospital, he was told that the police had confiscated his wheelchair.
It took three weeks of appeals and lobbying from Vidal, his family, his GP, hospital medics and eventually advocacy groups before he got it back.
Vidal is paraplegic with complex health needs and has a specially adapted, manual wheelchair. It has an option to attach a wheel at the front, this can be manually operated as a "hand bike", or with different attachments, operated as an electric bike. The attachments are designed to be easily clipped on and off.
On this occasion, Vidal had clipped a battery-powered electric bike attachment onto his wheelchair. He explained that he has used the electric bike attachment for years, travelled extensively with it, including through airports, and that he believed it was legal. https://www.salamandernews.org/police-impound-disabled-mans-wheelchair-3-weeks/
He got nicked because he's a law abiding citizen who was ignorant of the law, so an easy mark for the rozzers. If he was a 19 year old lad in a balaclava pulling a wheelie on a souped up ebike through Loughborough market place, on the way to nick other law abiding citizens' property, the rozzers wouldn't touch him.
He was unconscious, in hospital, after an accident. Which makes it even easier to nick him.
This morning I visited the wonderful Pink Lane bakery and had a sensational cheese and jalapeño bagel. Enjoying a glass of wine in fenwicks before a trip for more wine in grainger market.
The wines in Fenwicks were pouilly-fine and mandrarossa grillo. Both nice.
Life is short. Enjoy it.
I've spent 3 days of my life in Newcastle upon Tyne which is regrettable because it seemed like a really interesting place when I was there.
It’s magnificent. We were in ouseburn on Saturday and had a great time. There’s so much here. It’s so nice.
My mother, OGH's wife, is from Newcastle, and I spent a lot of my childhood holidays there and absolutely love it.
I don’t know when you were last here but, for all the development, for me it’s retained its charm in a way places like Brum haven’t
It’s also so close to the coast too.
I’d never move back south
I've not been since I moved to LA eight years ago, but used to be up pretty much every year before that. Albeit we'd often rent a cottage in Alnmouth, and wouldn't spend too much time in town.
It has a really handsome Georgian core, a spectacular setting, and Geordies are great
Plus magnificent countryside nearby and kipper and egg baps on Bamburgh beach
This morning I visited the wonderful Pink Lane bakery and had a sensational cheese and jalapeño bagel. Enjoying a glass of wine in fenwicks before a trip for more wine in grainger market.
The wines in Fenwicks were pouilly-fine and mandrarossa grillo. Both nice.
Life is short. Enjoy it.
I've spent 3 days of my life in Newcastle upon Tyne which is regrettable because it seemed like a really interesting place when I was there.
It’s magnificent. We were in ouseburn on Saturday and had a great time. There’s so much here. It’s so nice.
My mother, OGH's wife, is from Newcastle, and I spent a lot of my childhood holidays there and absolutely love it.
I don’t know when you were last here but, for all the development, for me it’s retained its charm in a way places like Brum haven’t
It’s also so close to the coast too.
I’d never move back south
I've not been since I moved to LA eight years ago, but used to be up pretty much every year before that. Albeit we'd often rent a cottage in Alnmouth, and wouldn't spend too much time in town.
Alnmouth is a fab place. Like going back in time. We have been a couple of times for a walk, totally unspoiled by progress
Yep: when we had little kids and the sun was shining, it was absolutely magical. Plus, Holy Island was just a short drive.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
'casually murdered' - seriously? - we are dealing with tragic cases here. I do not think that humans have rights until they are born. That's my position. I think it is logically coherent even though you don't agree with it.
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
Someone has flagged Leon's post. For the record it wasn't me and I do not agree with its flagging. I agree with Leon on a lot of things and can take it that we disagree on this one.
That's an interesting theory; but we're at the stage now where, without leaks of information from the inquiry, there is no new information and it is just educated guesswork. We will just have to wait for more information in the interim report. These YouTubers are now just clickbaiting, looking at different theories with not much basis to them.
And the reverse ferreting from the people who were saying "It's the pilot's fault!!!" is contemptible.
This morning I visited the wonderful Pink Lane bakery and had a sensational cheese and jalapeño bagel. Enjoying a glass of wine in fenwicks before a trip for more wine in grainger market.
The wines in Fenwicks were pouilly-fine and mandrarossa grillo. Both nice.
Life is short. Enjoy it.
I've spent 3 days of my life in Newcastle upon Tyne which is regrettable because it seemed like a really interesting place when I was there.
It’s magnificent. We were in ouseburn on Saturday and had a great time. There’s so much here. It’s so nice.
My mother, OGH's wife, is from Newcastle, and I spent a lot of my childhood holidays there and absolutely love it.
I don’t know when you were last here but, for all the development, for me it’s retained its charm in a way places like Brum haven’t
It’s also so close to the coast too.
I’d never move back south
I've not been since I moved to LA eight years ago, but used to be up pretty much every year before that. Albeit we'd often rent a cottage in Alnmouth, and wouldn't spend too much time in town.
Alnmouth is a fab place. Like going back in time. We have been a couple of times for a walk, totally unspoiled by progress
Yep: when we had little kids and the sun was shining, it was absolutely magical. Plus, Holy Island was just a short drive.
The view from the bit before Lindisfarne castle across to Bamburgh on a clear day 🥰
Radio Five Live is discussing this website, which I'd never heard of before.
"The creator of Tattle Life could face a raft of new lawsuits from stars defamed on his website after he was unmasked as the King of Trolls, experts told MailOnline today. Vegan influencer Sebastian Bond, 43, was exposed after a couple won a £300,000 libel payout over vile claims posted about them on the so-called 'trolls' paradise', which he quietly founded eight years ago. Tattle Life became an unchecked breeding ground for bullying, ‘doxxing’ and outright lies."
I'm familiar with the case of one person who was "documented" there - Jack Monroe. The bits I have seen have been about embarrassing detail and exposing hypocrisy - much of which is often true but the subject may wish to have out of the public gaze. In the JM case for example there was stuff about family background and behaviour, which did not quite match up to the portrayed public image. I'll say no more detail.
Probably well-described as tittle-tattle, or perhaps gossip including some malicious gossip. Think of it as content about individuals that in the political universe might be on Guido Fawkes or Popbitch.
I think Guido just lost too, did he not - where his 'my site is libel proof' claim went slightly pop ?
I see that the lawyers involved are Carter-Ruck.
Reflecting further, I'd quite like to see the judgement, because I'm not sure where we are on defamation law now & "truth" as a strong defence.
Tattle is a mixture of the true but embarrassing, the questionable - "himmm, is that true?", and the made up. The difficulty for the site owners is that they have some liability themselves (I'm not sure what that extent is, either), and curating a Wild West is difficult.
In some ways it is like running a Tabloid Newspaper, but with anonymous authors and without the resources to manage it effectively.
Are there perhaps implications for Twitter, where Musk & Co have arguably posted plenty of material that is imaginary.
There are also issues around internet regulation. Does the Online Safety Bill have anything relevant to say?
Tattle is very, very entertaining. I'm not a member, registration was closed years ago, and I wouldn't join anyway, just because it is absolutely the wild west. Some of things you read make your toes curl, and the way that social media influences are called out/ debunked is how I found the site- trying to find out how legit some people I followed were. I'm not surprised it's in trouble. The Carter Ruck bod is called Persephone Bridgman Baker. That's the sort of name that I look for in a barrister. Never trust a legal eagle with a boring name.
For many years I thought they pronounced it ‘Percy-phone’ rather than ‘per-sef-funny’
Didn’t come across too many Persephones growing up
It took me years to work out how "fellatio" was pronounced. It's not a word you often hear spoken out loud
A case that I would welcome comment on, from whatever view. A man's wheelchair was confiscated by the police for 3 weeks and kept in the vehicle pound. Without it he was not comfortably mobile, even within his own home. It took some heavy intervention to shift the police stance.
The core issues are around the regulatory hole between tricycle, wheelchairs and mobility scooters, and which category a clip-on hand cycle fits into, the police being ill-informed / officious, and the failure of Governments to keep regulations up to date. Using a clip-on handcycle (manual or battery) can double or treble autonomous travel radius for a wheelchair user - maybe to 8-15 miles in any direction. This has been a campaign issue for a few years.
My photo today is the one at the bottom, which is a manual wheelchair with a clip-on handcycle attachment, as you can see.
Police impound disabled man's wheelchair for 3 weeks
A severely disabled man from New Cross was left housebound and completely dependent on friends and family, while he appealed to police to release his wheelchair from Charlton Vehicle Pound. ... When Vidal woke up in hospital, he was told that the police had confiscated his wheelchair.
It took three weeks of appeals and lobbying from Vidal, his family, his GP, hospital medics and eventually advocacy groups before he got it back.
Vidal is paraplegic with complex health needs and has a specially adapted, manual wheelchair. It has an option to attach a wheel at the front, this can be manually operated as a "hand bike", or with different attachments, operated as an electric bike. The attachments are designed to be easily clipped on and off.
On this occasion, Vidal had clipped a battery-powered electric bike attachment onto his wheelchair. He explained that he has used the electric bike attachment for years, travelled extensively with it, including through airports, and that he believed it was legal. https://www.salamandernews.org/police-impound-disabled-mans-wheelchair-3-weeks/
He got nicked because he's a law abiding citizen who was ignorant of the law, so an easy mark for the rozzers. If he was a 19 year old lad in a balaclava pulling a wheelie on a souped up ebike through Loughborough market place, on the way to nick other law abiding citizens' property, the rozzers wouldn't touch him.
The fact you can clip one wire of a certain model of e-bike and turn it into a 50mph monster should be addressed. This is all done with a nudge nudge wink wink of the manufacturer.
My Giant ebike is Class 1, peddle assisted to 25km/h. Fully UK /EU road legal, proper battery and charger. Basically gets you up and running quicker, and gives you a hand up steep hills. On the flat, I tend to ride at around 28/30km/h, so it's all me doing the work anyway. I can go on Amazon and buy an aftermarket "chip" for 150 quid that then let's me, via my Giant RideControl app put the speed up to 50km/h. The bike forums would point me the way to do it for free by snipping the correct wire in the motor!
To say BlueSky is dying is overstating things, but it has been declining in all important engagement metrics over the course of this year. It is basically back down to where it was last September which is where it got an initial anti-Elon bump.
Radio Five Live is discussing this website, which I'd never heard of before.
"The creator of Tattle Life could face a raft of new lawsuits from stars defamed on his website after he was unmasked as the King of Trolls, experts told MailOnline today. Vegan influencer Sebastian Bond, 43, was exposed after a couple won a £300,000 libel payout over vile claims posted about them on the so-called 'trolls' paradise', which he quietly founded eight years ago. Tattle Life became an unchecked breeding ground for bullying, ‘doxxing’ and outright lies."
I'm familiar with the case of one person who was "documented" there - Jack Monroe. The bits I have seen have been about embarrassing detail and exposing hypocrisy - much of which is often true but the subject may wish to have out of the public gaze. In the JM case for example there was stuff about family background and behaviour, which did not quite match up to the portrayed public image. I'll say no more detail.
Probably well-described as tittle-tattle, or perhaps gossip including some malicious gossip. Think of it as content about individuals that in the political universe might be on Guido Fawkes or Popbitch.
I think Guido just lost too, did he not - where his 'my site is libel proof' claim went slightly pop ?
I see that the lawyers involved are Carter-Ruck.
Reflecting further, I'd quite like to see the judgement, because I'm not sure where we are on defamation law now & "truth" as a strong defence.
Tattle is a mixture of the true but embarrassing, the questionable - "himmm, is that true?", and the made up. The difficulty for the site owners is that they have some liability themselves (I'm not sure what that extent is, either), and curating a Wild West is difficult.
In some ways it is like running a Tabloid Newspaper, but with anonymous authors and without the resources to manage it effectively.
Are there perhaps implications for Twitter, where Musk & Co have arguably posted plenty of material that is imaginary.
There are also issues around internet regulation. Does the Online Safety Bill have anything relevant to say?
Tattle is very, very entertaining. I'm not a member, registration was closed years ago, and I wouldn't join anyway, just because it is absolutely the wild west. Some of things you read make your toes curl, and the way that social media influences are called out/ debunked is how I found the site- trying to find out how legit some people I followed were. I'm not surprised it's in trouble. The Carter Ruck bod is called Persephone Bridgman Baker. That's the sort of name that I look for in a barrister. Never trust a legal eagle with a boring name.
For many years I thought they pronounced it ‘Percy-phone’ rather than ‘per-sef-funny’
Didn’t come across too many Persephones growing up
It took me years to work out how "fellatio" was pronounced. It's not a word you often hear spoken out loud
Genuine question - could the abortion issue not have been resolved in a much less politically charged way by updating charging guidelines?
I.e - in taking a decision to prosecute, attention has to be paid to the emotional state of the woman at the time and in the majority of cases prosecutions would not be advisable based on the very vulnerable position she is likely to have found herself in?
Perhaps I am splitting hairs.
I think that would have been a bad move. If the law isn't to be enforced then it shouldn't be law..
That ignores that cases - which are part of what prompted this piece of legislation - where miscarriages which involved no action at all by the woman in question were subject to intrusive criminal investigation by the police.
An update to guideline might have made a real difference there.
From what I've seen of the debate, though, there doesn't appear to be a simple answer which will satisfy the very strongly held opinions on both sides of the issue.
Yes, police do need to tread carefully and sensitively and clearly the initial appearance between a genuine miscarriage and a self-administered abortion may be very similar. Decent guidance on operational procedure would no doubt be very helpful.
But if those sort of cases are what prompted this amendment then it's opening up a far worse situation to resolve a genuine problem that could have been dealt with far better, differently.
FWIW, my own personal interest in this is having lost one unborn child to an early-term miscarriage and came close to losing a second immediately pre-birth due to the hospital's negligence / inattention (but fortunately that turned out fine in the end, much more by luck than good judgement).
on the abortion vote, I'm surprised all Reform UK MPs opposed the amendment. Shows them to be conservative more than libertarian, at least on this issue.
I missed the chat on here yesterday; I would have voted in favour.
I don't think it's necessarily inconsistent to be libertarian and anti-abortion.
I'm generally pretty libertarian - do what you like, how you like, with whoever you like - it's your moral problem, not the government's - but I'm quite strongly anti-abortion, particularly late abortion.
Abortion is different, because it's all about the question of "is an unborn child a person". If they are, then it's murder, and you have to be quite an extreme libertarian to be OK with that. I can see how one can argue that a 6 week fetus isn't a person (I'm not sure I agree, but I understand the case being made). I can't see how you can make that argument at 39 weeks, which is what we've just semi-legalised.
I usually agree with you on everything so I was a little surprised to read your post yesterday.
I take the view, expressed by very few on here yesterday, I admit, that it is birth that is key and up to then it is all about the rights of the pregnant woman. There seems to me to be a religious component, which I don't hold, that is at the root of ascribing rights to the unborn (which is why many conservatives separate from libertarians on this issue I think).
I think your position is very hard to sustain logically.
Take the extreme end of this (and that's what this change in the law partially enables). A baby in the womb at 39 weeks. If you deliver it, it will live a normal life with no special intervention. Are you really OK with permitting a woman to destroy that baby, because she doesn't want it?
Ignore the edge cases about it being found to suffer some dread illness. Ignore arguments about "she shouldn't be made to continue the pregnancy" - assume she'd otherwise go into labour that afternoon. Is it really OK to kill that baby before delivery (as that's about the only difference with an abortion that late)?
I wouldn't use the work 'ok' about such a dreadful predicament.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
So, just common assault then rather than some form of infanticide?
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
On your last point, only when it is born. Up to then no rights. That's my view. Sorry.
So you disagree with the current, actual, legal position on 24 weeks? Which isn’t actually changed by the law passed yesterday.
In principle yes I disagree with it. In practice medical professionals would not assist much (if at all) beyond 24 weeks so it is a moot point. I probably wouldn't change the law on this partly to protect medical professionals. But I am sure that women shouldn't be pursued by the law which is why I would have voted in favour yesterday. I realise I am at the extreme end of the debate on this.
Ok.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
I had to look that up, though I could have guessed what it meant.
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
It’s “absurd” that a 39 week old fetus in utero, entirely grown and ready for life, should have some human rights? eg the right to not be casually murdered?
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
'casually murdered' - seriously? - we are dealing with tragic cases here. I do not think that humans have rights until they are born. That's my position. I think it is logically coherent even though you don't agree with it.
Fair enough. At least you admit that your position is extreme
On the other point, it would be fun if we could see who flags us. I often like to hazard a guess…
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2le12114j9o
"The law will still penalise anyone who assists a woman, including medical professionals, in getting an abortion outside the current legal framework."
Canada has more liberal abortion laws than the new law (if/once passed) in the UK. Is Canada deluged by incidents of this nature? No.
We have had real problems, and those were the inappropriate investigations and prosecutions of women in the UK.
Even apparently intransigent and inflexible people and institutions can draw the line at different times on this. I believe that church doctrine used to draw the line at the quickening - roughly the end of the first trimester - and that the current "life begins at conception" doctrine is relatively modern.
But this law change doesn't change where society has drawn the line. It only recognises that someone so desperate as to desire an abortion at such a late stage is someone who needs help, and that criminal conviction doesn't do anything to help society or create deterrence.
I found it somewhat odd that they wanted to study at UCL considering its whole foundation was based on it not being religious. I’m sure many students lives would have been improved marginally by the fuckers studying elsewhere that was more in line with their world view, maybe in Saudi or Pakistan.
What I am sure about is that the poor woman should not be prosecuted. It is her foetus / her predicament / her choice.
If she had attacked another pregnant woman and caused the miscarriage of the other woman's baby then of course she should be prosecuted. But even then it is because of the harm to the other women not the foetus.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/bluesky-is-dying/
Remember the narrative on here when Boris was unfairly ambushed by a cake at home whilst Starmer was living it up on lager and curry (Sir Beer Korma) during mid- lockdown.
Presumably you'd extend the same leniency to the father aborting the child in the same way?
Yes, she absolutely should be prosecuted. There are many vulnerable people within the criminal justice system who have committed crimes. Their vulnerability is (or should be) taken into account when sentencing, if found guilty.
In any case, I reject the notion that the foetus is 'hers' alone to do with as she will. It has a right as a human, to have its own interests taken into account.
(for those who do not speak Dura_Ace: personnel from the Israeli Air Force came to RAF Waddington in Lincolnshire for a three-week exercise with the RAF in 2019. Although no formal alliance exists, the UK feels that it would be a good idea to assist the State of Israel alongside the United States)
Tattle is a mixture of the true but embarrassing, the questionable - "himmm, is that true?", and the made up. The difficulty for the site owners is that they have some liability themselves (I'm not sure what that extent is, either), and curating a Wild West is difficult.
In some ways it is like running a Tabloid Newspaper, but with anonymous authors and without the resources to manage it effectively.
Are there perhaps implications for Twitter, where Musk & Co have arguably posted plenty of material that is imaginary.
There are also issues around internet regulation. Does the Online Safety Bill have anything relevant to say?
I’m trying to work out why Labour are suddenly dropping
On your second point, context would be key in my view. The events of yesterday would still render the prospective father liable for prosecution, of course. Speaking personally and being honest with you I could envisage arguing that in tragic circumstances where helping a partner abort, with her will and without any form of coercion, should be excused from prosecution. Depends on the case.
Certainly last evening @TSE posted two informative pieces which explained in chapter and verse what the vote conducted yesterday evening meant in terms of legal jeopardy for both the mother (or lack thereof) and other stakeholders.
These details were then largely ignored by a number of posters, especially the disingenuous cheerleader.
They clearly have no idea where to stand (apparently don't recognise their own flags) and it's all very awkward, but shaking the interpreter's hand doesn't seem to be on camera.
ETA: Anyway, why not shake the interpreter's hand? Safe option - hand shaking might be a very rude gesture in S Korea, so maybe you shake the interpreter's hand, and he translates it into slapping the president in the face in traditional S Korean greeting, thus avoiding a diplomatic incident?
I see no good reason to give Israel anything at the moment, particularly given how they're carrying on in Gaza and the West Bank. FWIW, I do think their current operation against Iran is justified given both Iran's failure to adhere to its previous commitments on nuclear development, and its open support for Hamas and Hezbollah prior to the Oct 7 attacks. But that's Israel's war, not ours.
Would you expect the other woman to agree that no crime had been committed against her child?
And the woman agrees and does it?
By your reckoning the woman has committed no crime. Because the baby has zero rights
The core issues are around the regulatory hole between tricycle, wheelchairs and mobility scooters, and which category a clip-on hand cycle fits into, the police being ill-informed / officious, and the failure of Governments to keep regulations up to date. Using a clip-on handcycle (manual or battery) can double or treble autonomous travel radius for a wheelchair user - maybe to 8-15 miles in any direction. This has been a campaign issue for a few years.
My photo today is the one at the bottom, which is a manual wheelchair with a clip-on handcycle attachment, as you can see.
Police impound disabled man's wheelchair for 3 weeks
A severely disabled man from New Cross was left housebound and completely dependent on friends and family, while he appealed to police to release his wheelchair from Charlton Vehicle Pound.
...
When Vidal woke up in hospital, he was told that the police had confiscated his wheelchair.
It took three weeks of appeals and lobbying from Vidal, his family, his GP, hospital medics and eventually advocacy groups before he got it back.
Vidal is paraplegic with complex health needs and has a specially adapted, manual wheelchair. It has an option to attach a wheel at the front, this can be manually operated as a "hand bike", or with different attachments, operated as an electric bike. The attachments are designed to be easily clipped on and off.
On this occasion, Vidal had clipped a battery-powered electric bike attachment onto his wheelchair. He explained that he has used the electric bike attachment for years, travelled extensively with it, including through airports, and that he believed it was legal.
https://www.salamandernews.org/police-impound-disabled-mans-wheelchair-3-weeks/
MPs have opened the door to infanticide" (£)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/mps-have-opened-the-door-to-infanticide/
I.e - in taking a decision to prosecute, attention has to be paid to the emotional state of the woman at the time and in the majority of cases prosecutions would not be advisable based on the very vulnerable position she is likely to have found herself in?
Perhaps I am splitting hairs.
https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1935208800954540317
That was the third-largest decline among the 24 countries surveyed by @pewresearch
https://x.com/notesfrompoland/status/1935267141701251175
But I do think that such a major change should not have come off the back of an amendment with minimal public or political debate in advance. Compare the amount of time and attention given to this vote with that when the limit was reduced from 28 to 24 weeks (which was a less significant change).
It’s abominable. And yet some people on here hold this position. Incredible
https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/1935050419673383332
"Richard Tice MP 🇬🇧
@TiceRichard
Disgusting
Labour cheered as they voted to become the party of baby killers
SICK"
That reply was clearly meant for @Stocky
Whether that should be the position, perhaps an interesting debate.
Almost certain there will be MAGA goons polishing up this line.
I don't think the criminal justice system is the right way to handle most of these cases - and so have some sympathy with the amendment (less with Creasy's) but I do have concerns that this could de-criminalise a few cases where the mother definitely should face proceedings, but perhaps those would be covered by other laws.
The existing law is a bit of a legal mess, but seemed to get the balance largely correct, including (in the end, on sentence appeal) in the Foster case, where I think investigation was appropriate and she was guilty but should not have been given a custodial sentence.
An update to guideline might have made a real difference there.
From what I've seen of the debate, though, there doesn't appear to be a simple answer which will satisfy the very strongly held opinions on both sides of the issue.
If Israel wants more support, it needs to behave like a member of the civilized world. it could also help its cause by being more supportive itself of other countries invaded and bullied by larger neighbours, viz Ukraine.
Humanity, really.
The problem is that the worshippers of The Process State demand a one-size-fits-all linear rule book. Which is utterly incompatible with such an approach.
In addition, discretion is treated with horror by the police etc.
No good deed goes unpunished
ICE are still detaining individuals, ignoring their rights, and trying to rush them out of the country before anyone can do anything - whilst their cases are still in process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXlXq54enP4
That he hasn't...
The wines in Fenwicks were pouilly-fine and mandrarossa grillo. Both nice.
Life is short. Enjoy it.
What is your belief on the point of personhood of the foetus?
Some of things you read make your toes curl, and the way that social media influences are called out/ debunked is how I found the site- trying to find out how legit some people I followed were.
I'm not surprised it's in trouble.
The Carter Ruck bod is called Persephone Bridgman Baker. That's the sort of name that I look for in a barrister. Never trust a legal eagle with a boring name.
They have US bunker busters, which they've used extensively in Gaza, but they don't have the capacity to hit the really deep facilities like Fordow.
Now, their approach is the Russian/Athenian one. "The strong do as they will, the weak suffer what they must."
Far from being a truism, it's an approach that is stupid, cruel, and eventually, self-defeating.
Didn’t come across too many Persephones growing up
"So-called “fetal personhood” laws, which give fetuses, and in some cases embryos, the legal rights of a person."
Absurd.
However on a more base level I suspect Trump likes the idea of playing God. Biblical levels of dead people on the turning down of a thumb by an Emperor probably floats his boat.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/mps-have-opened-the-door-to-infanticide/
Seriously bleak
What I don’t understand is how this major major change - not approved by the public, not in the Labour manifesto - has been rushed into law with 40 minutes debate on a sleepy Wednesday evening. This is not good
It’s also so close to the coast too.
I’d never move back south
It’s definitely more than the F15I can carry - at least nominally.
Musk had another meltdown overnight cos GROK refused to endorse his fascist bullshit, so he is going to try and "fix" it again
I am curious what white supremacist crap he will program it to spew now
That’s “absurd”?
There is something wrong in your head
Plus magnificent countryside nearby and kipper and egg baps on Bamburgh beach
I’m another fan of The Toon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XptrHxG9dDk
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_lock
And the reverse ferreting from the people who were saying "It's the pilot's fault!!!" is contemptible.
Why not go and look?
On the flat, I tend to ride at around 28/30km/h, so it's all me doing the work anyway.
I can go on Amazon and buy an aftermarket "chip" for 150 quid that then let's me, via my Giant RideControl app put the speed up to 50km/h.
The bike forums would point me the way to do it for free by snipping the correct wire in the motor!
On TwiX you fight the algo
Maybe why Sean prefers TwiX
The key difference is that TwiX increasingly pushes the "thoughts" of Chairman Musk as a default, and they are increasingly scary.
But if those sort of cases are what prompted this amendment then it's opening up a far worse situation to resolve a genuine problem that could have been dealt with far better, differently.
FWIW, my own personal interest in this is having lost one unborn child to an early-term miscarriage and came close to losing a second immediately pre-birth due to the hospital's negligence / inattention (but fortunately that turned out fine in the end, much more by luck than good judgement).
On the other point, it would be fun if we could see who flags us. I often like to hazard a guess…