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.
And practically. It's way beyond the capacity of any single point on the F15, which would in any event be severely range constrained carrying such a load even distributed across multiple hard points.
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
It has never been the law, though, fetuses have never had rights under English law as they are not considered alive. While abortion was illegal in the past, it was a specific crime and not treated as murder.
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.
So, if we knock balaclava lad off his bike, we could nick him? Genuinely, the talk on the Loughborough community forums on Facebook is all about vigilante action against him and his cohort. Lots of tough threats, but no evidence yet of action!
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.
It is logical and a wholly personal answer to a deeply difficult moral question.
But then you are not a Shock-Jock Edgelord who can throw out pontifications predicated on a wilful misinterpretation of the facts surrounding yesterday's vote.
If the poster in question is a US style anti abortionist that is his business, and far be it for me to question his moral conclusion. I do question his interpretation of what went on last night, and why.
6 local by-elections tomorrow. There is a Lab defence in Adur and a Con defence in Spelthorne. Then it gets complicated. We have a double vacancy in Highlands for 2 Ind seats. In North Yorkshire we have a Social Justice Party elected as Ind defence. Finally in Sefton we have an Ind elected as Lab defence. Could be complicated.
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.
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
Why are you guys using Bluesky when Bluesky is obviously dying?
It's not obviously dying, but the obvious answer to your question is "cos it's not run by a fascist"
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
I've heard that BlueSky is more of an echo chamber for liberal lefties than X is for right-wingers.
"You've heard" ?
Why not go and look?
He’d die of boredom. I just spent several days browsing Bluesky for an article I hope to write on Basalt Buttplugs Biannual edition. Bluesky is so monumentally boring shrill and unfunny. It’s just a load of unpleasant lefties furiously blocking each other for wrongthink
I see it's the best Yougov score for Labour since mid April and within 3 points of Farage.
Reeves budget or Starmer being seen on the world stage?
We had a budget from Rachel? News to me.
Other polls showing quite the opposite. And Stamer's personal ratings are the worst ever for a PM in modern era in first 100 days, which OGH always points to personal ratings as an extremely good indicator. Probably down to Starmer drinking his British Pints for British Workers.
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
Not with your mouth full anyway. I think a soft or hard(ooer) ‘t’ are both options.
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).
I’m glad it turned out ok for you. You write about this topic eloquently - perhaps this is why
I agree with your position completely. From now on I might just reference your opinion when this subject arises, as having to engage with it personally is quite depressing. So bleak
Many conservatives I know have been very sniffy about the entire concept of 'human rights'. Interesting to see the same people up in arms over foetus' rights.
Not much sign of the abortion debate anywhere other than PB. Not trending on X, not top read on the BBC, not mentioned on the landing page of the Telegraph, halfway down the Mail front page, nothing on Mumsnet, a couple of articles in the Spectator but that's it.
It's worthy of debate but it's simply not a big political issue - at least for the moment.
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.
What is her predicament here? In the scenario I'm outlining, there are two courses of action available. Both lead to a birth at the same time, in the same way. The *only* difference is that in one case there is an intervention so the baby is born dead.
The mother is not required to do anything for the child after birth - if she so desires it can be whisked away for adoption without her even catching sight of it.
I cannot see a way to make that morally or legally right.
Somewhat with Barty, as a minimum, the law should be - if the baby is viable, abortion is off the table. Early induction followed by adpotion should be the solution in these cases.
There is no good reason for abortion of healthy viable babies capable of surviving outside the womb.
At to all the people who are saying "no one wants to do this anyway", you're obviously wrong, because: a) Parliament has just changed the law. If no one ever did it, there would be no reason to change the law b) Parliament's actions were triggered because a woman called Carla Foster was convicted for obtaining by deception the really late abortion of a healthy baby for no good reason.
The law changing will result in more Carla Fosters, and I can't see how on earth that can be a good thing.
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
Like pronouncing Hermione as Her-me-one, as one child did when reading Harry Potter.
I see it's the best Yougov score for Labour since mid April and within 3 points of Farage.
Reeves budget or Starmer being seen on the world stage?
Or just random noise?
Hard to tell, although Labour does look to have had a bit of an uptick the last few weeks and Reform are maybe off their peak.
Unlikely to be Reeves U-turning on WFA: you generally get little credit for U-turning immediately, particularly when the reasons you give for doing so are obviously false. It might be that the Spring election season is over and Labour is settling back into government-as-normal.
That said, 24% is still a pretty shit share for the governing party.
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.
So, if we knock balaclava lad off his bike, we could nick him? Genuinely, the talk on the Loughborough community forums on Facebook is all about vigilante action against him and his cohort. Lots of tough threats, but no evidence yet of action!
Same in my town with the persistent offenders who treat front street as a racing strip.
Of course when they come off and the inevitable happens it will be ‘he was a smashing lad, a bit cheeky’, ‘fly high little angel’ followed by a balloon release.
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.
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
Not much sign of the abortion debate anywhere other than PB. Not trending on X, not top read on the BBC, not mentioned on the landing page of the Telegraph, halfway down the Mail front page, nothing on Mumsnet, a couple of articles in the Spectator but that's it.
It's worthy of debate but it's simply not a big political issue - at least for the moment.
Perhaps BECAUSE the debate was snuck through sight unseen on a quiet Wednesday evening. No one noticed
As I said last night I think this is an issue which will first percolate down to social media, THEN perhaps gain wider attention
If the Lords take against it, that could be the moment the spark ignites the kindling
And now I’m gonna have a coffee because I don’t want to spend a whole sunny beautiful day talking about abortion. It’s too sad
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
Like pronouncing Hermione as Her-me-one, as one child did when reading Harry Potter.
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
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
It's a bit of a mouthful tbf.
Reminds me of the old joke about counting. Can’t remember the build up but the punchline is ‘once you get to 69 it’s bit of a mouthful’
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
It's a bit of a mouthful tbf.
Best way to clarify is to do an internet search on a work computer.
I see it's the best Yougov score for Labour since mid April and within 3 points of Farage.
Reeves budget or Starmer being seen on the world stage?
Or just random noise?
Hard to tell, although Labour does look to have had a bit of an uptick the last few weeks and Reform are maybe off their peak.
Unlikely to be Reeves U-turning on WFA: you generally get little credit for U-turning immediately, particularly when the reasons you give for doing so are obviously false. It might be that the Spring election season is over and Labour is settling back into government-as-normal.
That said, 24% is still a pretty shit share for the governing party.
Part of the problem of having five reasonably substantial UK-wide parties.
After all, the poll share for Nigel's all-conquering turquoise army is currently a bit worse than John Major's share in 1997.
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.
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.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
I see it's the best Yougov score for Labour since mid April and within 3 points of Farage.
Reeves budget or Starmer being seen on the world stage?
Or just random noise?
Hard to tell, although Labour does look to have had a bit of an uptick the last few weeks and Reform are maybe off their peak.
Unlikely to be Reeves U-turning on WFA: you generally get little credit for U-turning immediately, particularly when the reasons you give for doing so are obviously false. It might be that the Spring election season is over and Labour is settling back into government-as-normal.
That said, 24% is still a pretty shit share for the governing party.
Part of the problem of having five reasonably substantial UK-wide parties who are all quite shit .
After all, the poll share for Nigel's all-conquering turquoise army is currently a bit worse than John Major's share in 1997.
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.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
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
I see it's the best Yougov score for Labour since mid April and within 3 points of Farage.
Reeves budget or Starmer being seen on the world stage?
Or just random noise?
Hard to tell, although Labour does look to have had a bit of an uptick the last few weeks and Reform are maybe off their peak.
Unlikely to be Reeves U-turning on WFA: you generally get little credit for U-turning immediately, particularly when the reasons you give for doing so are obviously false. It might be that the Spring election season is over and Labour is settling back into government-as-normal.
That said, 24% is still a pretty shit share for the governing party.
Part of the problem of having five reasonably substantial UK-wide parties.
After all, the poll share for Nigel's all-conquering turquoise army is currently a bit worse than John Major's share in 1997.
True but these are not independent variables. Reform is doing so well (in relative terms) *because* the Tories and Labour are both doing so badly; Greens likewise.
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.
So, if we knock balaclava lad off his bike, we could nick him? Genuinely, the talk on the Loughborough community forums on Facebook is all about vigilante action against him and his cohort. Lots of tough threats, but no evidence yet of action!
Many years ago, in Oxford, a friend was knocked down by a hit and run driver.
A policeman found him lying in the road. Since he had long hair and smelt of beer (my friend was working in a pub that evening) he kicked him several times then arrested him for drunk and disorderly. Also, the policeman nicked an expensive watch….
The whole thing was caught on some early CCTV. The lengths the police went to, to convict my friend of *something* were bizarre and hilarious.
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.
So, if we knock balaclava lad off his bike, we could nick him? Genuinely, the talk on the Loughborough community forums on Facebook is all about vigilante action against him and his cohort. Lots of tough threats, but no evidence yet of action!
Same in my town with the persistent offenders who treat front street as a racing strip.
Of course when they come off and the inevitable happens it will be ‘he was a smashing lad, a bit cheeky’, ‘fly high little angel’ followed by a balloon release.
I get bored of coming back from trips to the local NNR with balloons recovered from various bits of bog.
At least it beats setting it on fire with chinese lanterns, but only just.
There's a small local park near me which is a bit of green space with a few benches scattered about. Unfortunately the bench in the quietest corner has been replaced with a truly hideous granite seat which acts as a memorial to 5 children that died in a car crash (doing 90 in a 40), with carved pictures and names.
How they got permission for it I have no idea, but obviously nobody sits in it now.
So tempted to make a few copies of the front page of the Origin of Species to attach.
Many conservatives I know have been very sniffy about the entire concept of 'human rights'. Interesting to see the same people up in arms over foetus' rights.
People are sniffy about the right to the correct type of chicken nuggets. The right to life is not widely disputed to my knowledge.
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
Like pronouncing Hermione as Her-me-one, as one child did when reading Harry Potter.
Goblet of Fire was genuinely a revelation on that point for me.
Mark Zuckerberg has been offering $100m (£74m) signing-on bonuses to lure staff from the maker of ChatGPT as Meta steps up its race to develop artificial intelligence (AI).
Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, ChatGPT’s creator, claimed Mr Zuckerberg’s company had been making “giant offers” to poach staff from his business.
Speaking on a podcast, Mr Altman said: “They started making these giant offers to a lot of people in our team. $100m signing bonuses, more than that comp per year. It is crazy.”
Mark Zuckerberg has been offering $100m (£74m) signing-on bonuses to lure staff from the maker of ChatGPT as Meta steps up its race to develop artificial intelligence (AI).
Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, ChatGPT’s creator, claimed Mr Zuckerberg’s company had been making “giant offers” to poach staff from his business.
Speaking on a podcast, Mr Altman said: “They started making these giant offers to a lot of people in our team. $100m signing bonuses, more than that comp per year. It is crazy.”
Mark Zuckerberg has been offering $100m (£74m) signing-on bonuses to lure staff from the maker of ChatGPT as Meta steps up its race to develop artificial intelligence (AI).
Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, ChatGPT’s creator, claimed Mr Zuckerberg’s company had been making “giant offers” to poach staff from his business.
Speaking on a podcast, Mr Altman said: “They started making these giant offers to a lot of people in our team. $100m signing bonuses, more than that comp per year. It is crazy.”
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.
So, if we knock balaclava lad off his bike, we could nick him? Genuinely, the talk on the Loughborough community forums on Facebook is all about vigilante action against him and his cohort. Lots of tough threats, but no evidence yet of action!
Same in my town with the persistent offenders who treat front street as a racing strip.
Of course when they come off and the inevitable happens it will be ‘he was a smashing lad, a bit cheeky’, ‘fly high little angel’ followed by a balloon release.
I get bored of coming back from trips to the local NNR with balloons recovered from various bits of bog.
At least it beats setting it on fire with chinese lanterns, but only just.
There's a small local park near me which is a bit of green space with a few benches scattered about. Unfortunately the bench in the quietest corner has been replaced with a truly hideous granite seat which acts as a memorial to 5 children that died in a car crash (doing 90 in a 40), with carved pictures and names.
How they got permission for it I have no idea, but obviously nobody sits in it now.
So tempted to make a few copies of the front page of the Origin of Species to attach.
Before my dad died he lived in an old folks home and overlooked a bench to a little lad, Arthur Labanjo-Hughes, who was murdered by his parents/guardians. KRO Arthur. It was a genuine place of quiet contemplation.
How little shits driving dangerously and suffering the consequence get a bench god only knows.
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
Like pronouncing Hermione as Her-me-one, as one child did when reading Harry Potter.
Goblet of Fire was genuinely a revelation on that point for me.
Mark Zuckerberg has been offering $100m (£74m) signing-on bonuses to lure staff from the maker of ChatGPT as Meta steps up its race to develop artificial intelligence (AI).
Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, ChatGPT’s creator, claimed Mr Zuckerberg’s company had been making “giant offers” to poach staff from his business.
Speaking on a podcast, Mr Altman said: “They started making these giant offers to a lot of people in our team. $100m signing bonuses, more than that comp per year. It is crazy.”
Mark Zuckerberg has been offering $100m (£74m) signing-on bonuses to lure staff from the maker of ChatGPT as Meta steps up its race to develop artificial intelligence (AI).
Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, ChatGPT’s creator, claimed Mr Zuckerberg’s company had been making “giant offers” to poach staff from his business.
Speaking on a podcast, Mr Altman said: “They started making these giant offers to a lot of people in our team. $100m signing bonuses, more than that comp per year. It is crazy.”
Do the majority go out on loan to Curry's?
No going out on loan in Silicon Valley, you get sent to the roof....
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.
The numbers are tinier than tiny. There were 260 abortions after 24 weeks in England 2022, which is 0.1% of the total, and amongst those where there is a possibility of criminal proceedings will be a further tiny fraction of those.
I think there is some politics around setting the type of conversation, where abortion will be considered as a medical procedure, rather than an emphasis on abortion as a crime and imposing opinions on women where their individual choice is undermined.
I think this basis is important, especially as we see attempts to import a fundamentalist politics around abortion from the USA, where the welfare of the woman becomes a peripheral priority in the minds of the proponents of the types of laws there are now in a number of US states.
I'm at ease with decriminalisation of abortion for the woman who makes the choice - I'm convinced by the assertion that she knows best, but there must be the possibility of criminal charges for those who force any woman to have an abortion against her will.
I have not seen exact details for the numbers of prosecutions of women where it was all their own will, but on the stats I quote I'm convinced that it is better to decriminalise.
BTW - "Party of Baby Killers" - wtf is Richard Tice on?
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/
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 didn't get nicked; his wheelchair got impounded whilst he was in hospital.
TBF though there is a good account, I have not got detail down to whether he was ticketed/charged. I suspect "not in the public interest" would be the get out for a back down.
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/
If only they were as diligent with criminal's
Malcolm, hope you’re well
We live in a society where if you’re a repeat offender or a burglar, shoplifter, phone thief, there’s little chance of any comeback.
But if you fail tonisurevyour car, it SORN it, or get the wrong train ticket in error, or not have a tv license then the law really comes down on you.
Fuck the Police and the judicial system that enables it
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.
The numbers are tinier than tiny. There were 260 abortions after 24 weeks in England 2022, which is 0.1% of the total, and amongst those where there is a possibility of criminal proceedings will be a further tiny fraction of those.
I think there is some politics around setting the type of conversation, where abortion will be considered as a medical procedure, rather than an emphasis on abortion as a crime and imposing opinions on women where their individual choice is undermined.
I think this basis is important, especially as we see attempts to import a fundamentalist politics around abortion from the USA, where the welfare of the woman becomes a peripheral priority in the minds of the proponents of the types of laws there are now in a number of US states.
I'm at ease with decriminalisation of abortion for the woman who makes the choice - I'm convinced by the assertion that she knows best, but there must be the possibility of criminal charges for those who force any woman to have an abortion against her will.
I have not seen exact details for the numbers of prosecutions of women where it was all their own will, but on the stats I quote I'm convinced that it is better to decriminalise.
BTW - "Party of Baby Killers" - wtf is Richard Tice on?
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.
The numbers are tinier than tiny. There were 260 abortions after 24 weeks in England 2022, which is 0.1% of the total, and amongst those where there is a possibility of criminal proceedings will be a further tiny fraction of those.
I think there is some politics around setting the type of conversation, where abortion will be considered as a medical procedure, rather than an emphasis on abortion as a crime and imposing opinions on women where their individual choice is undermined.
I think this basis is important, especially as we see attempts to import a fundamentalist politics around abortion from the USA, where the welfare of the woman becomes a peripheral priority in the minds of the proponents of the types of laws there are now in a number of US states.
I'm at ease with decriminalisation of abortion for the woman who makes the choice - I'm convinced by the assertion that she knows best, but there must be the possibility of criminal charges for those who force any woman to have an abortion against her will.
I have not seen exact details for the numbers of prosecutions of women where it was all their own will, but on the stats I quote I'm convinced that it is better to decriminalise.
BTW - "Party of Baby Killers" - wtf is Richard Tice on?
He showed, with his casual dismissing of Sammy Woodhouse, Reforms concerns are performative
I may be wrong but I think he used to post on here a very long time ago. I can't remember what name he used.
My recollection is, if we are looking at the same guy, he shot from the hip with scant regard for factual citations. Citations tended to be from his own work in the Speccie which was a bit odd.
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.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
Whether it's abortion, or trans, or assisted suicide, the question of a threshold - the point at which things move from one phase to another - is important, and is rarely considered carefully. The abortion 24 week limit was one such, and IIRC represents a rather stressed compromise, liked by few but acceptable to most.
Now we have a new one, and I don't think there is a consensus in the UK in favour of full-term abortions. If you'd asked me a month ago that abortion would be an issue in British politics I'd've laughed in your face. Now I'm not so sure.
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.
Is the B2 required? Surely the US could sell Israel a bunch of B1.Bs? They have a significantly heavier payload than the B2. Given that Israel is trashing Iran's air defence capability, it doesn't need stealth capability. A supersonic bomber that can unleash a devastating payload is exactly what Israel needs.
I've just found out I've lost another ex colleague to suicide. That's 5 good blokes gone in the past 10 years.
Tragic that anyone should get to that state of mind.
I remember a guy I used to work with, he was based in Holland, a nice guy, took his own life. Left for work. Got into the office. Left to get some lunch. Next thing he’s gone on the train line and ran at a train. Left no note or anything. Terribly sad and his family were not just distressed but confused
Definitely leftenant When I worked on the mini project I used to get the piss took for calling down tubes ‘down toobs’
My other half noted that I used a long a for bath and a short a for grass when we first met. Probably as a result of being from Coventry (Close to Kenilworth) where the vowel splits are all over the shop and very weakly defined in general.
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.
What is her predicament here? In the scenario I'm outlining, there are two courses of action available. Both lead to a birth at the same time, in the same way. The *only* difference is that in one case there is an intervention so the baby is born dead.
The mother is not required to do anything for the child after birth - if she so desires it can be whisked away for adoption without her even catching sight of it.
I cannot see a way to make that morally or legally right.
Somewhat with Barty, as a minimum, the law should be - if the baby is viable, abortion is off the table. Early induction followed by adpotion should be the solution in these cases.
There is no good reason for abortion of healthy viable babies capable of surviving outside the womb.
At to all the people who are saying "no one wants to do this anyway", you're obviously wrong, because: a) Parliament has just changed the law. If no one ever did it, there would be no reason to change the law b) Parliament's actions were triggered because a woman called Carla Foster was convicted for obtaining by deception the really late abortion of a healthy baby for no good reason.
The law changing will result in more Carla Fosters, and I can't see how on earth that can be a good thing.
Canada has more liberal abortion law. Canada is not full of Carla Fosters.
I may be wrong but I think he used to post on here a very long time ago. I can't remember what name he used.
My recollection is, if we are looking at the same guy, he shot from the hip with scant regard for factual citations. Citations tended to be from his own work in the Speccie which was a bit odd.
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.
Is the B2 required? Surely the US could sell Israel a bunch of B1.Bs? They have a significantly heavier payload than the B2. Given that Israel is trashing Iran's air defence capability, it doesn't need stealth capability. A supersonic bomber that can unleash a devastating payload is exactly what Israel needs.
Depends on the internal setup - the B2 can carry the CSRL, which is supposed to swap out with the rack for the GBU-57.
But the B1B hasn’t been qualified for it. Might not fit the bays. The B1B is also an incredible maintenance hog - requires an army of well trained spanner types to get it to fly. And a mountain of spares.
Then you’d have pilot training….
Whole thing would be a non-starter.
The only real option might be test samples of the NGP - which is supposed to be the same capability of GBU-57 but one third the weight.
Definitely leftenant When I worked on the mini project I used to get the piss took for calling down tubes ‘down toobs’
My other half noted that I used a long a for bath and a short a for grass when we first met. Probably as a result of being from Coventry (Close to Kenilworth) where the vowel splits are all over the shop and very weakly defined in general.
Ha
I stopped in Kenilworth when working in leamington. Great kebab shop by the Shakespeare Pub/Sainsburys car park
Not much sign of the abortion debate anywhere other than PB. Not trending on X, not top read on the BBC, not mentioned on the landing page of the Telegraph, halfway down the Mail front page, nothing on Mumsnet, a couple of articles in the Spectator but that's it.
It's worthy of debate but it's simply not a big political issue - at least for the moment.
There was a big thread on Reddit this morning, mostly supportive of the change. Reddit leans more leftwards than X… but then most things in the known universe lean more leftwards than X.
I've just found out I've lost another ex colleague to suicide. That's 5 good blokes gone in the past 10 years.
Tragic that anyone should get to that state of mind.
I remember a guy I used to work with, he was based in Holland, a nice guy, took his own life. Left for work. Got into the office. Left to get some lunch. Next thing he’s gone on the train line and ran at a train. Left no note or anything. Terribly sad and his family were not just distressed but confused
I worked with a guy who many years later was arrested for a sexual assault on a (child) family member. Initially he denied the charge, but on the day he came clean his wife walked in front of a First Great Western express train at Yate. He was out in a couple of years, whilst she paid the ultimate price for his crimes.
One has to be absolutely at the end of their tether to make such an awful decision.
Serves Israel right for using Hermes. Would have been better to use a DPD drone instead.
Presumably the EVRI drone is lost over the med
There's been a delay with the delivery of your bomb-laden drone. Here’s a link which you can click on each day to confirm that it’s still sitting in the depot:
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.
So, if we knock balaclava lad off his bike, we could nick him? Genuinely, the talk on the Loughborough community forums on Facebook is all about vigilante action against him and his cohort. Lots of tough threats, but no evidence yet of action!
Same in my town with the persistent offenders who treat front street as a racing strip.
Of course when they come off and the inevitable happens it will be ‘he was a smashing lad, a bit cheeky’, ‘fly high little angel’ followed by a balloon release.
I get bored of coming back from trips to the local NNR with balloons recovered from various bits of bog.
At least it beats setting it on fire with chinese lanterns, but only just.
There's a small local park near me which is a bit of green space with a few benches scattered about. Unfortunately the bench in the quietest corner has been replaced with a truly hideous granite seat which acts as a memorial to 5 children that died in a car crash (doing 90 in a 40), with carved pictures and names.
How they got permission for it I have no idea, but obviously nobody sits in it now.
So tempted to make a few copies of the front page of the Origin of Species to attach.
Before my dad died he lived in an old folks home and overlooked a bench to a little lad, Arthur Labanjo-Hughes, who was murdered by his parents/guardians. KRO Arthur. It was a genuine place of quiet contemplation.
How little shits driving dangerously and suffering the consequence get a bench god only knows.
All ‘with nana and the angles’ stuff
I have some sympathy with your views - its striking how whenever this happens the boys (and its almost always boys) were loveable rogues, kind to their grans, etc etc. I know we don't speak ill of the dead but sometimes the dead are that way because they are little shits.
Although of course only one of the five was driving. The other four could have been pleading for him t slow down.*
And its becoming increasingly clear that young men do not reach mental maturity until they are 25 ish.
So its not simple.
* Leads into a classic Bob Monkhouse joke - "I want to die in my sleep, not screaming in terror like the passengers on the bus I was driving at the time".
I've just found out I've lost another ex colleague to suicide. That's 5 good blokes gone in the past 10 years.
Tragic that anyone should get to that state of mind.
I remember a guy I used to work with, he was based in Holland, a nice guy, took his own life. Left for work. Got into the office. Left to get some lunch. Next thing he’s gone on the train line and ran at a train. Left no note or anything. Terribly sad and his family were not just distressed but confused
I worked with a guy who many years later was arrested for a sexual assault on a (child) family member. Initially he denied the charge, but on the day he came clean his wife walked in front of a First Great Western express train at Yate. He was out in a couple of years, whilst she paid the ultimate price for his crimes.
One has to be absolutely at the end of their tether to make such an awful decision.
Absolutely, and then the shock and trauma is magnified by the suffering not just of her family, but the train driver(s), and to a lesser extent the passengers etc
If people really want to end their lives, there should be a clinical solution available to everyone, with safeguards, rather than people stepping in front of trains.
I've just found out I've lost another ex colleague to suicide. That's 5 good blokes gone in the past 10 years.
Tragic that anyone should get to that state of mind.
I was talking about the suicide of Graham Thorpe with my father in law. He (my FiL) is generally a grumpy bugger who gives the impression of being entirely discontent with life, but I was rather taken aback to hear he – with sympathy – expressed the view that – aside from the situation of being in constant and unresolvable pain – couldn’t imagine every being in a situation where you wouldn’t want to go on living. Whereas, frankly, I have a brilliant life with which I am entirely happy – yet there will still be, what, six times a year or so when I want to end it all. And nowadays I recognise the feeling when it comes and know the feeling will pass in a few days*. But I can’t imagine how people can go through life without ever feeling like this.
*usually it does, nowadays. 2020 was the last real occasion on which it persisted.
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.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
Birth.
That's a legal/political view though, not a scientifical one. The science tells us that the foetus is very much conscious, and babies can recall their time in the womb, sometimes for a long period. Usually I would expect you to have some regard for the facts (obviously as you discern them) above peoples' sensitivities. That's how you portray yourself anyway.
The Geoff Lindsay points out that the opposite of "covert" used to be mainly regarded as "open", whereas since the pronunciation change it has been "overt".
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.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
I think it’s a mistake to think that a foetus becomes a person at some point. That’s the big fallacy, that there is a moment in time before which it isn’t a person and after which, they are a person. Rather, it’s a process, a gradual change. A 16-week foetus is not a person. A child post-birth is a person. Personhood gradually develops. However, the law wants simple cut-offs.
Many conservatives I know have been very sniffy about the entire concept of 'human rights'. Interesting to see the same people up in arms over foetus' rights.
People are sniffy about the right to the correct type of chicken nuggets. The right to life is not widely disputed to my knowledge.
The right to life seems more in doubt that it should be if you live in Gaza… or Tehran, or Tel Aviv, or southern Syria, or Ukraine… or if you are on death row in the US, or if you knock on the wrong door in the US, or if you are protesting in the US, or if you are a politician in the US…
I've just found out I've lost another ex colleague to suicide. That's 5 good blokes gone in the past 10 years.
Tragic that anyone should get to that state of mind.
I remember a guy I used to work with, he was based in Holland, a nice guy, took his own life. Left for work. Got into the office. Left to get some lunch. Next thing he’s gone on the train line and ran at a train. Left no note or anything. Terribly sad and his family were not just distressed but confused
I worked with a guy who many years later was arrested for a sexual assault on a (child) family member. Initially he denied the charge, but on the day he came clean his wife walked in front of a First Great Western express train at Yate. He was out in a couple of years, whilst she paid the ultimate price for his crimes.
One has to be absolutely at the end of their tether to make such an awful decision.
Absolutely, and then the shock and trauma is magnified by the suffering not just of her family, but the train driver(s), and to a lesser extent the passengers etc
If people really want to end their lives, there should be a clinical solution available to everyone, with safeguards, rather than people stepping in front of trains.
That is dodgy territory that would make even a liberal lefty like me uncomfortable.
I knew a young woman through work who was bipolar. When she was down she was suicidal but half an hour later she was fine again. It just took one of those downs to tip her over the edge, and there was no way back. Mental health provision in the UK remains very poor.
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.
At some point the foetus becomes a person. When is that?
Whether it's abortion, or trans, or assisted suicide, the question of a threshold - the point at which things move from one phase to another - is important, and is rarely considered carefully. The abortion 24 week limit was one such, and IIRC represents a rather stressed compromise, liked by few but acceptable to most.
Now we have a new one, and I don't think there is a consensus in the UK in favour of full-term abortions. If you'd asked me a month ago that abortion would be an issue in British politics I'd've laughed in your face. Now I'm not so sure.
Yes - I agree. Thresholds.
And the single most important step is to leave the simplistic world of extremes and black and white divisions, and accept that grey areas require a modus operandi and a via media of some sort.
I've just found out I've lost another ex colleague to suicide. That's 5 good blokes gone in the past 10 years.
Tragic that anyone should get to that state of mind.
I remember a guy I used to work with, he was based in Holland, a nice guy, took his own life. Left for work. Got into the office. Left to get some lunch. Next thing he’s gone on the train line and ran at a train. Left no note or anything. Terribly sad and his family were not just distressed but confused
I worked with a guy who many years later was arrested for a sexual assault on a (child) family member. Initially he denied the charge, but on the day he came clean his wife walked in front of a First Great Western express train at Yate. He was out in a couple of years, whilst she paid the ultimate price for his crimes.
One has to be absolutely at the end of their tether to make such an awful decision.
That’s horrendous. She paid the price for his crimes. I’ve had some dark moments in my life, as I’m sure many of us have, but it’s never been that dark I’d consider that. I remember working on the London Underground and jumpers were regarded as an inconvenience
Many conservatives I know have been very sniffy about the entire concept of 'human rights'. Interesting to see the same people up in arms over foetus' rights.
People are sniffy about the right to the correct type of chicken nuggets. The right to life is not widely disputed to my knowledge.
The right to life seems more in doubt that it should be if you live in Gaza… or Tehran, or Tel Aviv, or southern Syria, or Ukraine… or if you are on death row in the US, or if you knock on the wrong door in the US, or if you are protesting in the US, or if you are a politician in the US…
If those are people that Stocky knows, he must have a wider acquaintance than we previously imagined.
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.
Is the B2 required? Surely the US could sell Israel a bunch of B1.Bs? They have a significantly heavier payload than the B2. Given that Israel is trashing Iran's air defence capability, it doesn't need stealth capability. A supersonic bomber that can unleash a devastating payload is exactly what Israel needs.
Depends on the internal setup - the B2 can carry the CSRL, which is supposed to swap out with the rack for the GBU-57.
But the B1B hasn’t been qualified for it. Might not fit the bays. The B1B is also an incredible maintenance hog - requires an army of well trained spanner types to get it to fly. And a mountain of spares.
Then you’d have pilot training….
Whole thing would be a non-starter.
The only real option might be test samples of the NGP - which is supposed to be the same capability of GBU-57 but one third the weight.
All fair points, but ther edoes seem to be a capability gap in the Israeli air force.
I've seen it suggested that the NGP is so accurate it could follow down the hole made by its predecessor bomb - with each getting further through the concrete surround of the facility until you finally breakthrough. Be quite the Top Gun award to be the one who finally smashes into the facility. Sure there'd be plenty up for trying....
Comments
Is bluesky moribund
I think so
It's way beyond the capacity of any single point on the F15, which would in any event be severely range constrained carrying such a load even distributed across multiple hard points.
Genuinely, the talk on the Loughborough community forums on Facebook is all about vigilante action against him and his cohort.
Lots of tough threats, but no evidence yet of action!
But then you are not a Shock-Jock Edgelord who can throw out pontifications predicated on a wilful misinterpretation of the facts surrounding yesterday's vote.
If the poster in question is a US style anti abortionist that is his business, and far be it for me to question his moral conclusion. I do question his interpretation of what went on last night, and why.
Reeves budget or Starmer being seen on the world stage?
Other polls showing quite the opposite. And Stamer's personal ratings are the worst ever for a PM in modern era in first 100 days, which OGH always points to personal ratings as an extremely good indicator. Probably down to Starmer drinking his British Pints for British Workers.
I think a soft or hard(ooer) ‘t’ are both options.
I agree with your position completely. From now on I
might just reference your opinion when this subject arises, as having to engage with it personally is quite depressing. So bleak
It's worthy of debate but it's simply not a big political issue - at least for the moment.
The mother is not required to do anything for the child after birth - if she so desires it can be whisked away for adoption without her even catching sight of it.
I cannot see a way to make that morally or legally right.
Somewhat with Barty, as a minimum, the law should be - if the baby is viable, abortion is off the table. Early induction followed by adpotion should be the solution in these cases.
There is no good reason for abortion of healthy viable babies capable of surviving outside the womb.
At to all the people who are saying "no one wants to do this anyway", you're obviously wrong, because:
a) Parliament has just changed the law. If no one ever did it, there would be no reason to change the law
b) Parliament's actions were triggered because a woman called Carla Foster was convicted for obtaining by deception the really late abortion of a healthy baby for no good reason.
The law changing will result in more Carla Fosters, and I can't see how on earth that can be a good thing.
Hard to tell, although Labour does look to have had a bit of an uptick the last few weeks and Reform are maybe off their peak.
Unlikely to be Reeves U-turning on WFA: you generally get little credit for U-turning immediately, particularly when the reasons you give for doing so are obviously false. It might be that the Spring election season is over and Labour is settling back into government-as-normal.
That said, 24% is still a pretty shit share for the governing party.
Of course when they come off and the inevitable happens it will be ‘he was a smashing lad, a bit cheeky’, ‘fly high little angel’ followed by a balloon release.
It's getting ever better.
As I said last night I think this is an issue which will first percolate down to social media, THEN perhaps gain wider attention
If the Lords take against it, that could be the moment the spark ignites the kindling
And now I’m gonna have a coffee because I don’t want to spend a whole sunny beautiful day talking about abortion. It’s too sad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujuGKvMSeWA
After all, the poll share for Nigel's all-conquering turquoise army is currently a bit worse than John Major's share in 1997.
Serves Israel right for using Hermes. Would have been better to use a DPD drone instead.
A policeman found him lying in the road. Since he had long hair and smelt of beer (my friend was working in a pub that evening) he kicked him several times then arrested him for drunk and disorderly. Also, the policeman nicked an expensive watch….
The whole thing was caught on some early CCTV. The lengths the police went to, to convict my friend of *something* were bizarre and hilarious.
"The top secret story of why you say this word the way you do!
Dr Geoff Lindsey"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeHRN6GlNOs
At least it beats setting it on fire with chinese lanterns, but only just.
There's a small local park near me which is a bit of green space with a few benches scattered about. Unfortunately the bench in the quietest corner has been replaced with a truly hideous granite seat which acts as a memorial to 5 children that died in a car crash (doing 90 in a 40), with carved pictures and names.
How they got permission for it I have no idea, but obviously nobody sits in it now.
So tempted to make a few copies of the front page of the Origin of Species to attach.
The garridge/garaaaage split is a remnant of that shift
Mark Zuckerberg has been offering $100m (£74m) signing-on bonuses to lure staff from the maker of ChatGPT as Meta steps up its race to develop artificial intelligence (AI).
Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, ChatGPT’s creator, claimed Mr Zuckerberg’s company had been making “giant offers” to poach staff from his business.
Speaking on a podcast, Mr Altman said: “They started making these giant offers to a lot of people in our team. $100m signing bonuses, more than that comp per year. It is crazy.”
How little shits driving dangerously and suffering the consequence get a bench god only knows.
All ‘with nana and the angles’ stuff
I think there is some politics around setting the type of conversation, where abortion will be considered as a medical procedure, rather than an emphasis on abortion as a crime and imposing opinions on women where their individual choice is undermined.
I think this basis is important, especially as we see attempts to import a fundamentalist politics around abortion from the USA, where the welfare of the woman becomes a peripheral priority in the minds of the proponents of the types of laws there are now in a number of US states.
I'm at ease with decriminalisation of abortion for the woman who makes the choice - I'm convinced by the assertion that she knows best, but there must be the possibility of criminal charges for those who force any woman to have an abortion against her will.
I have not seen exact details for the numbers of prosecutions of women where it was all their own will, but on the stats I quote I'm convinced that it is better to decriminalise.
BTW - "Party of Baby Killers" - wtf is Richard Tice on?
Sunder Katwala (sundersays)
@sundersays.bsky.social
· 8s
Oh no, it isn't
A truly absurd claim from Sean Thomas
https://bsky.app/profile/sundersays.bsky.social/post/3lruwqvoa7s2x
TBF though there is a good account, I have not got detail down to whether he was ticketed/charged. I suspect "not in the public interest" would be the get out for a back down.
We live in a society where if you’re a repeat offender or a burglar, shoplifter, phone thief, there’s little chance of any comeback.
But if you fail tonisurevyour car, it SORN it, or get the wrong train ticket in error, or not have a tv license then the law really comes down on you.
Fuck the Police and the judicial system that enables it
No different to the rest
NOTA is very much like the above
My recollection is, if we are looking at the same guy, he shot from the hip with scant regard for factual citations. Citations tended to be from his own work in the Speccie which was a bit odd.
Whether it's abortion, or trans, or assisted suicide, the question of a threshold - the point at which things move from one phase to another - is important, and is rarely considered carefully. The abortion 24 week limit was one such, and IIRC represents a rather stressed compromise, liked by few but acceptable to most.
Now we have a new one, and I don't think there is a consensus in the UK in favour of full-term abortions. If you'd asked me a month ago that abortion would be an issue in British politics I'd've laughed in your face. Now I'm not so sure.
When I worked on the mini project I used to get the piss took for calling down tubes ‘down toobs’
But the B1B hasn’t been qualified for it. Might not fit the bays. The B1B is also an incredible maintenance hog - requires an army of well trained spanner types to get it to fly. And a mountain of spares.
Then you’d have pilot training….
Whole thing would be a non-starter.
The only real option might be test samples of the NGP - which is supposed to be the same capability of GBU-57 but one third the weight.
I stopped in Kenilworth when working in leamington. Great kebab shop by the Shakespeare Pub/Sainsburys car park
Sunder, you do know he is on Bluesky, and feels lonely?
https://bsky.app/profile/thomasknox.bsky.social/post/3lruqmeo4rc2h
https://bsky.app/profile/mattwardman.bsky.social/post/3lruxfzwx5k2a
One has to be absolutely at the end of their tether to make such an awful decision.
Although of course only one of the five was driving. The other four could have been pleading for him t slow down.*
And its becoming increasingly clear that young men do not reach mental maturity until they are 25 ish.
So its not simple.
* Leads into a classic Bob Monkhouse joke - "I want to die in my sleep, not screaming in terror like the passengers on the bus I was driving at the time".
If people really want to end their lives, there should be a clinical solution available to everyone, with safeguards, rather than people stepping in front of trains.
*usually it does, nowadays. 2020 was the last real occasion on which it persisted.
I knew a young woman through work who was bipolar. When she was down she was suicidal but half an hour later she was fine again. It just took one of those downs to tip her over the edge, and there was no way back. Mental health provision in the UK remains very poor.
And the single most important step is to leave the simplistic world of extremes and black and white divisions, and accept that grey areas require a modus operandi and a via media of some sort.
Fudge is important.
I've seen it suggested that the NGP is so accurate it could follow down the hole made by its predecessor bomb - with each getting further through the concrete surround of the facility until you finally breakthrough. Be quite the Top Gun award to be the one who finally smashes into the facility. Sure there'd be plenty up for trying....