She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
C'mon, whether a pol would be a traitor or a faithful appears to be of vital importance currently. Or at least in the minds of those politicians desperately trying but failing to find the common touch.
Disclaimer: never watched an episode of this programme so no real idea what these terms refer to.
Me neither - thought I was the last person on earth.
It's complete horseshit and it is concerning the issue is only being pushed harder and harder, not falling away. Since there isn't such money it is just a self flagellation exercise, and just serves as a distraction from actually addressing any remaining systemic issues.
£18t for slavery reparations? Cmon. That's almost as ludicrous as Donald Trump's libel claim against the BBC.
Don’t worry @kinabalu . Your man Starmer will negotiate hard and get them to agree we can pay it over 10 years. With interest.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Even Boris has a soft spot for Rayner judging by his oggling her when she faced him over the despatch box
It's complete horseshit and it is concerning the issue is only being pushed harder and harder, not falling away. Since there isn't such money it is just a self flagellation exercise, and just serves as a distraction from actually addressing any remaining systemic issues.
£18t for slavery reparations? Cmon. That's almost as ludicrous as Donald Trump's libel claim against the BBC.
Don’t worry @kinabalu . Your man Starmer will negotiate hard and get them to agree we can pay it over 10 years. With interest.
Lol yes. Just so long as Trump doesn't get a dime. That one is existential for the UK. Game over as a proper self-respecting country if we cave.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
C'mon, whether a pol would be a traitor or a faithful appears to be of vital importance currently. Or at least in the minds of those politicians desperately trying but failing to find the common touch.
Disclaimer: never watched an episode of this programme so no real idea what these terms refer to.
Me neither - thought I was the last person on earth.
Nor me. The only 'reality' I do is Bake Off.
We resisted Traitors until last week. Then we succumbed and binge watched Celebrity Traitors. It turns out the rest of the country is right, it's addictive.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
I don’t think the OP is confusing anything. I think the OP is making stuff up, a.k.a. lying.
Clearly it is a complete fiction, but I am not sure one that is made to be convincing.
Ai says this about custodial sentences in E&W.
Based on the most recent data for the 12 months to June 2025:
83,718 offenders received immediate custodial sentences in England and Wales. While exact breakdowns for theft-specific custodial sentences are not provided, theft contributed to the overall rise in shorter custodial terms. The largest custodial sentence categories by offence type were: Violence against the person: ~29,500 offenders (35% of 83,718) Sexual offences: ~18,400 offenders (22% of 83,718) Drug offences: ~10,900 offenders (13% of 83,718)
So that would be a higher level of Tweet offences than drug offences.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
C'mon, whether a pol would be a traitor or a faithful appears to be of vital importance currently. Or at least in the minds of those politicians desperately trying but failing to find the common touch.
Disclaimer: never watched an episode of this programme so no real idea what these terms refer to.
Me neither - thought I was the last person on earth.
Nor me. The only 'reality' I do is Bake Off.
We resisted Traitors until last week. Then we succumbed and binge watched Celebrity Traitors. It turns out the rest of the country is right, it's addictive.
Yes, I bet. Tbh I find almost all realty tv addictive. That's why I stay well away.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
I didn't like the sound of "the PM will be talking to him about it over the weekend".
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Even Boris has a soft spot for Rayner judging by his oggling her when she faced him over the despatch box
‘Soft’ spot you say?
He's getting on now, and what with the weight gain...
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
I don’t think the OP is confusing anything. I think the OP is making stuff up, a.k.a. lying.
Clearly it is a complete fiction, but I am not sure one that is made to be convincing.
Ai says this about custodial sentences in E&W.
Based on the most recent data for the 12 months to June 2025:
83,718 offenders received immediate custodial sentences in England and Wales. While exact breakdowns for theft-specific custodial sentences are not provided, theft contributed to the overall rise in shorter custodial terms. The largest custodial sentence categories by offence type were: Violence against the person: ~29,500 offenders (35% of 83,718) Sexual offences: ~18,400 offenders (22% of 83,718) Drug offences: ~10,900 offenders (13% of 83,718)
So that would be a higher level of Tweet offences than drug offences.
Hang on, you don't show that tweet offences actually exist at the 12K level.
This is like saying that Heart of Midlothian are shite compared with Alpha Centauri IV Rovers. It might well be true, if the latter existed ...
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
C'mon, whether a pol would be a traitor or a faithful appears to be of vital importance currently. Or at least in the minds of those politicians desperately trying but failing to find the common touch.
Disclaimer: never watched an episode of this programme so no real idea what these terms refer to.
Me neither - thought I was the last person on earth.
Nor me. The only 'reality' I do is Bake Off.
We resisted Traitors until last week. Then we succumbed and binge watched Celebrity Traitors. It turns out the rest of the country is right, it's addictive.
I'm hoping for series two they choose exactly the same set of celebrities.
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
Um, the number of non-crime hate crime incidents per year is genuinely around that level. They aren't imprisonments (hopefully!) but plod is involved in all of them.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
Um, the number of non-crime hate crime incidents per year is genuinely around that level. They aren't imprisonments (hopefully!) but plod is involved in all of them.
But still - not crime. So not one of them is a crime to go to court and result in prison?? Or do I misunderstand? Surely if it ended up with prison it'd be a crime and be recorded separately.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
C'mon, whether a pol would be a traitor or a faithful appears to be of vital importance currently. Or at least in the minds of those politicians desperately trying but failing to find the common touch.
Disclaimer: never watched an episode of this programme so no real idea what these terms refer to.
Me neither - thought I was the last person on earth.
Nor me. The only 'reality' I do is Bake Off.
We resisted Traitors until last week. Then we succumbed and binge watched Celebrity Traitors. It turns out the rest of the country is right, it's addictive.
I'm hoping for series two they choose exactly the same set of celebrities.
If they do and choose the exact same traitors there's a danger David might figure it out.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
I didn't like the sound of "the PM will be talking to him about it over the weekend".
Have we any islands left that we could give him? It seems to be one of Starmer's go toes.
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
Um, actually, the number of non-crime hate crime incidents per year was around that number a year or two ago. That's not all incarcerations obvs, but plod is involved in all of them.
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
Um, the number of non-crime hate crime incidents per year is genuinely around that level. They aren't imprisonments (hopefully!) but plod is involved in all of them.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
I didn't like the sound of "the PM will be talking to him about it over the weekend".
Maybe Sir Keir will acquaint him with a quaint British expression as used in Arkell vs Pressdram
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
I'd agree, if I weren't concerned that they might get nobbled by the politicians, before it got that far.
So far they've played a commendably straight bat to the threat of the suit.
Yes, there's a lot of dillusionment and anger about "how the country is going" and it's a complex subject where perceptions often differ markedly from other published evidence which is rarely believed or trusted and it's that breaking of "trust" which is probably at the nub of all of this.
Economically, socially and culturally, we are (and have been) through a period of unprecedented upheaval of which the pandemic was not an insignificant element but changes in technology are another part. Traditional economic, social and cultural models have or are breaking down and what may replace them looks strange and uncomfortable and it's little surprise political movements pledging to "put things back" are getting support.
Demographic changes have further undermined the 20th century economic and social model which worked so well, especially after 1945, which brought prosperity, the likes of which we had never seen.
Trying to distil it down a bit, we may have longer lives but we don't feel we have better lives and the material benefits of acquisition (still plugged remorselessly by the advertising industry) and the life just beyond our reach further that sense of dissatisfaction. Aspiration was a term once widely used in political circles with Labour and Conservatives alternately seen as the party of those aspiring to better themselves but that was seen purely in economic terms and I don't think aspiration now is quite the same.
A "better" life isn't just a life with more things and more consumption, it's about less tangible elements such as being comfortable with friends, in communities, out and about and that comfort often stems from a sense of safety, security and familiarity. When everything looks and feels strange and unsettling, the desire is to retreat, to become more insular and that's where it becomes a problem.
There's the old adage of people like people like themselves and it;s the same whether you're a migrant from Eritrea newly arrived or someone who has lived in the same town for 70 years or more.
I'm not sure what the answers are but I think it's wrong for us to look to Government to provide them in entirety - there's more to be gained by people doing this for themselves, being more inclusive, more tolerant and this being empowered by community leaders as much as Government.
Yes, that's getting close to the heart of the matter, which might be why no politicians are satisfying whatever it is we are demanding. Because we don't really know what we want, except in negatives that boil down to "not this".
My house/street/neighbourhood was built about a hundred years ago. But in material ways, it's unrecognisable- the carpets (need to do something about the carpets), the central heating, the extension at the back, the office at the end of the garden. And that's a wider point; I just about remember the late 70s/early 80s, and life was (by modern standards) rubbish for most people. Go back further, and that's even more true.
So if our discontent isn't purely material- what is it? Some of it is bills coming due that we don't want to pay. And some of it is things have stopped seeming to get better. And some of it is moving from the easy bits of the Heirachy of Needs to the difficult bits. We can feed and shelter the world, but giving them meaning... that's tougher. Not helped by plutocrats using money as gaming chips, or by some of the answers to the "meaning" issue demolishing the things that have solved the "material" issue.
It all got messed up with austerity and cutting government spending, perhaps deliberately. But Dave was onto something with the Big Society stuff.
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
Um, the number of non-crime hate crime incidents per year is genuinely around that level. They aren't imprisonments (hopefully!) but plod is involved in all of them.
But still - not crime. So not one of them is a crime to go to court and result in prison?? Or do I misunderstand? Surely if it ended up with prison it'd be a crime and be recorded separately.
The figures quotes in Hansard are:
• reports/allegations the police receive, • that concern hate-related behaviour, • but do not amount to a crime, • and are therefore recorded (or historically would have been recorded) as non-crime hate incidents.
They are administrative entries and do not enter the criminal justice pipeline.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
There are 46 countries in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). These are all member states of the Council of Europe, which have signed up to the treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms for everyone within their jurisdiction.
It is entirely an European concept and the fact the US, the Commonwealth, and most countries worldwide are not members shows how insular it is
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
Um, the number of non-crime hate crime incidents per year is genuinely around that level. They aren't imprisonments (hopefully!) but plod is involved in all of them.
But still - not crime. So not one of them is a crime to go to court and result in prison?? Or do I misunderstand? Surely if it ended up with prison it'd be a crime and be recorded separately.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
I didn't like the sound of "the PM will be talking to him about it over the weekend".
Maybe Sir Keir will acquaint him with a quaint British expression as used in Arkell vs Pressdram
I'd like to think so but I somehow doubt it. His good (which requires pandering) relationship with Trump is something he sees as an achievement and an asset to the nation.
One second after Trump is finally forced from office we will hear GOP shills telling everyone that he was a Democrat really, and everything wrong he did was the fault of Democrats. Depend upon it.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
I didn't like the sound of "the PM will be talking to him about it over the weekend".
Have we any islands left that we could give him? It seems to be one of Starmer's go toes.
We should give him a small remote one on condition he goes and lives there.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
Taz keeps restating his opinion. He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion. And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Personally, I think the BBC should publicy welcome the suit, because it would allow them to question Donald Trump on the witness stand.
It could serve as a proxy for the 'insurrectionist' trial that he escaped due to being reelected.
Not even close. There is no direct link at all to the kerfuffle on the steps of the Capital and the subsequent disorder and the actions of Trump. Hence no prosecution, no charges.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
So far the e-mails released have been quite underwhelming, but there has to be much worse if Trump is so worried.
PB lawyers: If the BBC end up at trial can they widen things by presenting evidence of "character"?
It's up to Trump and his lawyers to present evidence.
He has to demonstrate deliberate untruth, actual malice (in the US), and actual damage to him or his reputation.
That's an exceedingly steep uphill task, since he'd struggle to do even one of those things.
What the BBC gets to present depends on that, as their evidence would be offered in rebuttal.
Unlikely to end in a trial anyway, IMO.
I don't get how there is a trial in US. No one in US saw this tv documentary.
It's the only place there can be a trial. Any UK libel suit is blocked by the statute of limitations.
It is pretty unlikely that it will go ahead. Which will disappoint the Mail, whose journalists have gone full fruit loop.
In tonight’s incredibly sane Mail on Sunday they have six pages on the BBC, three separate, unrelated attacks plus the front page. They side with Trump against the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation... https://x.com/davidyelland/status/1989841208596644175
Now that really is Trump Derangement Syndrome.
And they call themselves patriots.
My country right or wrong? The huge issue here is that the BBC has been prepared to doctor its news reporting. That affects the whole country.
If you've read the rest of my posts on the matter you'll know that is not what I am arguing.
This is - obviously - about the particular issue of the threatened law suit against the BBC.
Are you also saying we should pay Trump a billion dollars ? Or that the resignation of the DG and apology for the program in question is insufficient redress for the program edit ?
It’s not ‘we’ it’s the BBC.
As people who are supporters of the license fee have never ceased telling me the license fee is the Beebs money, it is not ours.
If Trump sues and wins blame the BBC for that not the wronged party, as Trump clearly is.
Taz, voice of the Mail.
Wouldn’t know, don’t read it. Never do.
Although I do read ‘This is money’ which has always been separate.
If the BBC don’t want to be sued by people don’t give them any reason to.
There is no reason to.
What irritated me about your reply is that it was a nitpick, defending the Mail's support of the pathological liar Trump, and didn't address any of my substantive points.
Your point is wrong that the money comes from us, it doesn’t. It comes from the BBC. It is their money. As I’ve been told plenty of times in the past by license fee fanatics. The BBC also doesn’t just gain revenue from the license fee.
‘We’ won’t pay him a penny. The BBC will, if they lose.
You don’t have to like Trump to see he is the wronged party here and the BBC have handled it badly and defending the BBC on the basis of my enemies enemy is my friend is just wrong. I’d say the same whoever the BBC had defamed.
Of course part of the problem with the BbC is they get a decent chunk of their money from the license fee so don’t need to compete for it and it gives them an arrogant air.
The BBC should not have shown an edited speech in a way that did not make the edit clear. In response, the BBC has apologised, removed the offending episode from iPlayer, and two senior people have resigned. That seems to me a fairly serious response. Do you feel the BBC should do more?
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
I didn't like the sound of "the PM will be talking to him about it over the weekend".
Have we any islands left that we could give him? It seems to be one of Starmer's go toes.
We should give him a small remote one on condition he goes and lives there.
I think St Helena is still a British Overseas Territory but I suspect the locals would not appreciate it.
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
Um, the number of non-crime hate crime incidents per year is genuinely around that level. They aren't imprisonments (hopefully!) but plod is involved in all of them.
But still - not crime. So not one of them is a crime to go to court and result in prison?? Or do I misunderstand? Surely if it ended up with prison it'd be a crime and be recorded separately.
The figures quotes in Hansard are:
• reports/allegations the police receive, • that concern hate-related behaviour, • but do not amount to a crime, • and are therefore recorded (or historically would have been recorded) as non-crime hate incidents.
They are administrative entries and do not enter the criminal justice pipeline.
NCHI can and do end up showing in enhanced disclosures though.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
C'mon, whether a pol would be a traitor or a faithful appears to be of vital importance currently. Or at least in the minds of those politicians desperately trying but failing to find the common touch.
Disclaimer: never watched an episode of this programme so no real idea what these terms refer to.
Me neither - thought I was the last person on earth.
Nor me. The only 'reality' I do is Bake Off.
We resisted Traitors until last week. Then we succumbed and binge watched Celebrity Traitors. It turns out the rest of the country is right, it's addictive.
You should watch the first two seasons of the regular show. Totally new and phenomenally fascinating TV. OF course like all of these shows, as they go through seasons and people work out how to game it, and the temptation to pick people because of conflicting personalities to juice it up means diminishing returns. The second one was a belter, with the actual winner totally deserving it.
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
Um, the number of non-crime hate crime incidents per year is genuinely around that level. They aren't imprisonments (hopefully!) but plod is involved in all of them.
Non-crime hate incidents is not the same as posts on social media, although there is overlap, so, no, you haven’t shown that they are around that level.
Sir Donald could be given a hereditary baronetcy. Or if he still cuts up rough, we could have Lord Trump of Turnberry, Lady Trump and Baron Barron Trump.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
C'mon, whether a pol would be a traitor or a faithful appears to be of vital importance currently. Or at least in the minds of those politicians desperately trying but failing to find the common touch.
Disclaimer: never watched an episode of this programme so no real idea what these terms refer to.
Me neither - thought I was the last person on earth.
Nor me. The only 'reality' I do is Bake Off.
We resisted Traitors until last week. Then we succumbed and binge watched Celebrity Traitors. It turns out the rest of the country is right, it's addictive.
You should watch the first two seasons of the regular show. Totally new and phenomenally fascinating TV. OF course like all of these shows, as they go through seasons and people work out how to game it, and the temptation to pick people because of conflicting personalities to juice it up means diminishing returns. The second one was a belter, with the actual winner totally deserving it.
I'm a bit of a cynic about the outcome of S2 but there were some great people in it. S3 was a bit of a let down, but only because the BBC refuse to accept that there is a game within a game for the faithful.
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
Um, the number of non-crime hate crime incidents per year is genuinely around that level. They aren't imprisonments (hopefully!) but plod is involved in all of them.
Non-crime hate incidents is not the same as posts on social media, although there is overlap, so, no, you haven’t shown that they are around that level.
There are two possibilities:
(1) the original Tweeter saw the "hate crime" numbers and thought that they referred to people imprisoned (2) the original Tweeter just made shit up because it fitted with his worldview
Personally, I suspect (2) is more likely than (1), but either is possible.
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
Um, the number of non-crime hate crime incidents per year is genuinely around that level. They aren't imprisonments (hopefully!) but plod is involved in all of them.
Non-crime hate incidents is not the same as posts on social media, although there is overlap, so, no, you haven’t shown that they are around that level.
There are two possibilities:
(1) the original Tweeter saw the "hate crime" numbers and thought that they referred to people imprisoned (2) the original Tweeter just made shit up because it fitted with his worldview
Personally, I suspect (2) is more likely than (1), but either is possible.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
C'mon, whether a pol would be a traitor or a faithful appears to be of vital importance currently. Or at least in the minds of those politicians desperately trying but failing to find the common touch.
Disclaimer: never watched an episode of this programme so no real idea what these terms refer to.
Me neither - thought I was the last person on earth.
Nor me. The only 'reality' I do is Bake Off.
We resisted Traitors until last week. Then we succumbed and binge watched Celebrity Traitors. It turns out the rest of the country is right, it's addictive.
You should watch the first two seasons of the regular show. Totally new and phenomenally fascinating TV. OF course like all of these shows, as they go through seasons and people work out how to game it, and the temptation to pick people because of conflicting personalities to juice it up means diminishing returns. The second one was a belter, with the actual winner totally deserving it.
I'm a bit of a cynic about the outcome of S2 but there were some great people in it. S3 was a bit of a let down, but only because the BBC refuse to accept that there is a game within a game for the faithful.
You think it was a setup? I dont really follow other reality style shows, but the faithful who lost ended up with a bit of a showbiz career did she not? Yes, S3 didnt seem to have much to it.
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
Um, the number of non-crime hate crime incidents per year is genuinely around that level. They aren't imprisonments (hopefully!) but plod is involved in all of them.
But still - not crime. So not one of them is a crime to go to court and result in prison?? Or do I misunderstand? Surely if it ended up with prison it'd be a crime and be recorded separately.
The figures quotes in Hansard are:
• reports/allegations the police receive, • that concern hate-related behaviour, • but do not amount to a crime, • and are therefore recorded (or historically would have been recorded) as non-crime hate incidents.
They are administrative entries and do not enter the criminal justice pipeline.
NCHI can and do end up showing in enhanced disclosures though.
I don't understand. Maybe I am making the mistake of misunderstanding "non crime" to mean no crime has been committed.
I can understand why police might get involved. A complaint is made, maybe it is thought that a crime has been committed. Once it is determined that it hasn't, why should it go on your record?
Sir Donald could be given a hereditary baronetcy. Or if he still cuts up rough, we could have Lord Trump of Turnberry, Lady Trump and Baron Barron Trump.
I believe the York title is vacant, though not auspicious.
I suppose Earl of Inverness is also available and closer to his UK family connections.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
C'mon, whether a pol would be a traitor or a faithful appears to be of vital importance currently. Or at least in the minds of those politicians desperately trying but failing to find the common touch.
Disclaimer: never watched an episode of this programme so no real idea what these terms refer to.
Me neither - thought I was the last person on earth.
Nor me. The only 'reality' I do is Bake Off.
We resisted Traitors until last week. Then we succumbed and binge watched Celebrity Traitors. It turns out the rest of the country is right, it's addictive.
You should watch the first two seasons of the regular show. Totally new and phenomenally fascinating TV. OF course like all of these shows, as they go through seasons and people work out how to game it, and the temptation to pick people because of conflicting personalities to juice it up means diminishing returns. The second one was a belter, with the actual winner totally deserving it.
I'm a bit of a cynic about the outcome of S2 but there were some great people in it. S3 was a bit of a let down, but only because the BBC refuse to accept that there is a game within a game for the faithful.
You think it was a setup? I dont really follow other reality style shows, but the faithful who lost ended up with a bit of a showbiz career did she not? Yes, S3 didnt seem to have much to it.
It's tricky, because you shouldn't underestimate how stupid people can be. S2 may well have been legit. However, I find the outcome of the recent celebrity series utterly confusing. No one asked David the obvious question of "what did you make of Alan voting for you at the round table?" It's very much a game of two-halves. The first half (maybe a bit more) is about surviving and it is very random. But the ending is completely different and every action has consequences. Perhaps David and Nick just weren't thinking about what was happening.
I think the OP is confusing arrests with imprisonment and is out by a factor of 10.
Lib Dem level numeracy here.
Um, the number of non-crime hate crime incidents per year is genuinely around that level. They aren't imprisonments (hopefully!) but plod is involved in all of them.
But still - not crime. So not one of them is a crime to go to court and result in prison?? Or do I misunderstand? Surely if it ended up with prison it'd be a crime and be recorded separately.
The figures quotes in Hansard are:
• reports/allegations the police receive, • that concern hate-related behaviour, • but do not amount to a crime, • and are therefore recorded (or historically would have been recorded) as non-crime hate incidents.
They are administrative entries and do not enter the criminal justice pipeline.
THanks to you and @viewcode - so basically there might have been 12K NHCI but they are completely irrelevant to actual numbers banged up. So someone is talking bollocks (if that isn't an insult to perfectly good offal).
And comparing it with actual drug convictions leading to imprisonment is like comparing Heart of Midlothian FC's scores with those of the the Slough Subbuteo club (you can choose youjr preferred way round).
Buttigieg: If it’s convenient for him to be a fascist, he’ll be a fascist. Maybe later on he’ll go back to being a Silicon Valley Democrat. He’ll be whatever he needs to be. https://x.com/chyeaok/status/1989390825261076924
Buttigieg: If it’s convenient for him to be a fascist, he’ll be a fascist. Maybe later on he’ll go back to being a Silicon Valley Democrat. He’ll be whatever he needs to be. https://x.com/chyeaok/status/1989390825261076924
A smart answer to that particular question, with the added advantage of being true.
Buttigieg: If it’s convenient for him to be a fascist, he’ll be a fascist. Maybe later on he’ll go back to being a Silicon Valley Democrat. He’ll be whatever he needs to be. https://x.com/chyeaok/status/1989390825261076924
A smart answer to that particular question, with the added advantage of being true.
Aren't democratic politicians supposed to respond to public opinion?
I don't suppose you would be up for a bet on that?
Yes £20 Charity of our choices.
Terms would be SKS has to be leader at the time of the VI Poll. Which has to be an Ipsos Mori one
Joint 2nd is void
So you win if Lab are clear 2nd during the time SKS is still leader.in an Ipsos Mori Poll
Bet settles in my favour if they have not been in clear 2nd by the time SKS is ousted or resigns.
Is that OK with you
I must admit, I'm a bit surprised you are so optimistic on Labour retaking the lead so quickly.
If I get rid of PM Starmer at the cost of a £20 donation to charity it will be cheap at half the price. I can guarantee Reeves is going to cost me many, many times that later this month.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you. However, the problem is that the ECHR (the court, not the convention) has become an increasingly activist court. See, for example, a judgement in 2023 where the ECHR decided that Switzerland is taking insufficient action to mitigate climate change and that the Swiss government needs to take further unspecified action. They may be right but, frankly, this is a political matter and not one in which the court should be getting involved.
A previous activist judgement concerned giving prisoners the right to vote. Those who drew up the Convention were very clear that they did not want to give prisoners any such right and tried to ensure that they did not do so. However, the ECHR decided that every legislature must vote to decide which categories of prisoner should be allowed to vote, and made it clear that the answer "none" was not acceptable. I happen to think that some prisoners should be allowed to vote, but the Court should not have got involved.
Activist judgements by the Court undermine the Convention. They should look at whether a government is actually in breach of the Convention, not try to find ways of interpreting the Convention to push a particular political agenda.
Buttigieg: If it’s convenient for him to be a fascist, he’ll be a fascist. Maybe later on he’ll go back to being a Silicon Valley Democrat. He’ll be whatever he needs to be. https://x.com/chyeaok/status/1989390825261076924
A smart answer to that particular question, with the added advantage of being true.
The whole clip is worth watching. He is by far the most articulate performer on the US political stage today.
"We're hearing Donald Trump may not pardon the Thanksgiving Turkey at the White House this year because the turkey is having trouble raising $2m to pay for the pardon."
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
"We're hearing Donald Trump may not pardon the Thanksgiving Turkey at the White House this year because the turkey is having trouble raising $2m to pay for the pardon."
"Besides," said the turkey, "I don't think my reputation can survive being pardoned by Trump."
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Farage has never been caught out being as dodgy as f*** over a property purchase.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
A couple of years ago I would have agreed with you. However, the problem is that the ECHR (the court, not the convention) has become an increasingly activist court. See, for example, a judgement in 2023 where the ECHR decided that Switzerland is taking insufficient action to mitigate climate change and that the Swiss government needs to take further unspecified action. They may be right but, frankly, this is a political matter and not one in which the court should be getting involved.
A previous activist judgement concerned giving prisoners the right to vote. Those who drew up the Convention were very clear that they did not want to give prisoners any such right and tried to ensure that they did not do so. However, the ECHR decided that every legislature must vote to decide which categories of prisoner should be allowed to vote, and made it clear that the answer "none" was not acceptable. I happen to think that some prisoners should be allowed to vote, but the Court should not have got involved.
Activist judgements by the Court undermine the Convention. They should look at whether a government is actually in breach of the Convention, not try to find ways of interpreting the Convention to push a particular political agenda.
I think the British prison population should be allowed to elect a single MP. The total number of imprisoned almost exactly matches the desired constituency size.
However, I would restrict the candidates who would be allowed to stand for parliament to those who had sentences left to run of at least, say, ten years.
Buttigieg: If it’s convenient for him to be a fascist, he’ll be a fascist. Maybe later on he’ll go back to being a Silicon Valley Democrat. He’ll be whatever he needs to be. https://x.com/chyeaok/status/1989390825261076924
Did he ask Buttigieg why he lied about and cover up Biden's unfitness to be President ?
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
Completely agree with this. The other day I suggested that the outcome of the next election might be Reform 25%, Labour and Tories 20%, Greens and Lib Dems 15% and sundry rubbish such as the SNP and whatever Your party is being called that week 5%. The result would be a Parliament that was incapable of providing stable governance but it would accurately reflect the lack of social cohesion we have as a country along with our somewhat tangential contact with reality.
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
Completely agree with this. The other day I suggested that the outcome of the next election might be Reform 25%, Labour and Tories 20%, Greens and Lib Dems 15% and sundry rubbish such as the SNP and whatever Your party is being called that week 5%. The result would be a Parliament that was incapable of providing stable governance but it would accurately reflect the lack of social cohesion we have as a country along with our somewhat tangential contact with reality.
Sorry I forgot to mention the SNP and even Plaid. NI MPs in recent years have increasingly come from parties with no real alignment to GB ones.
Buttigieg: If it’s convenient for him to be a fascist, he’ll be a fascist. Maybe later on he’ll go back to being a Silicon Valley Democrat. He’ll be whatever he needs to be. https://x.com/chyeaok/status/1989390825261076924
Did he ask Buttigieg why he lied about and cover up Biden's unfitness to be President ?
Another thing which could be asked of Buttigieg is:
Did you agree with the decision to go slow on the prosecution of Trump so that he would remain eligible to be GOP candidate in 2024 ?
BASH: We have seen these attacks from the president at other people. It's not new. And I haven't heard you speak out about it until it was directed at you.
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: I think that's fair criticism. And I would like to say, humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
BASH: We have seen these attacks from the president at other people. It's not new. And I haven't heard you speak out about it until it was directed at you.
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: I think that's fair criticism. And I would like to say, humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics.
BASH: We have seen these attacks from the president at other people. It's not new. And I haven't heard you speak out about it until it was directed at you.
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: I think that's fair criticism. And I would like to say, humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics.
Buttigieg: If it’s convenient for him to be a fascist, he’ll be a fascist. Maybe later on he’ll go back to being a Silicon Valley Democrat. He’ll be whatever he needs to be. https://x.com/chyeaok/status/1989390825261076924
Did he ask Buttigieg why he lied about and cover up Biden's unfitness to be President ?
Another thing which could be asked of Buttigieg is:
Did you agree with the decision to go slow on the prosecution of Trump so that he would remain eligible to be GOP candidate in 2024 ?
In what way did the Biden administrarion slow prosecutions?
I do think a lot of the political commentary is rather parochial at the moment. Starmer may not be a good PM, bad at politics and the like but that's just a small part of a much bigger picture as demonstrated by the parade of endless former prime ministers at the Cenotaph. We have sacked five prime ministers in less than 10 years. Having gone over the historical record I can't find anything comparable to that since at least the 1760s, if ever. It isn't a matter of whether Starmer can govern, it's a question of whether Britain is governable.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
This is a genuinely excellent post.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Burning carbon has been the bedrock of our prosperity since the industrial revolution. Solar may be relatively useful in tropical places but I haven't seen the evidence that it can be here. Are we going to import electricity from the Sahara? Decarbonising the European economy still looks pretty expensive to me.
"We're hearing Donald Trump may not pardon the Thanksgiving Turkey at the White House this year because the turkey is having trouble raising $2m to pay for the pardon."
"Besides," said the turkey, "I don't think my reputation can survive being pardoned by Trump."
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
The policy announcement at the conference went largely unopposed. It's also likely to look quite prescient if Shabana Mahmoud's Denmark changes face legal challenges under the ECHR (I know Denmark is in the ECHR but that by no means rules it out).
It’s down the to culture of the judges. Laws that sailed through in Denmark challenged here? That will be an interesting one.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
She has an impressive back story. Not only the first student from Manchester Polytechnic to become a deputy Prime Minister but possibly the first one to get a decent job. There's a lot to like. She's achieved what she has the hard way and she's not a sleazeball. In a choice between her and Farage only the creepiest would choose Farage.
Thankfully, I think the age of choosing Prime Ministers by back story has probably passed. The daft obsession with optics, vibes, what sort of sofa do they have, belongs to an age of 2000s budget surpluses and feels very anachronistic when we're staring down the barrel of an economic crisis.
Well possibly leaving the ECHR which Chris Philip has promised today will do the trick. There are still traditionalist Tories who hold those sorts of institutions dear. The Cameroons and the One Nation brigade for example and seeing an arriviste like Badenoch saying she'll leave can only be good for the Lib Dems
It isn't so much 'leaving the ECHR" as such; it's being seen to line up beside Putin and Lukashenko. if that's the company Badenoch wants to keep..........
This is such a ridiculous, bullshit argument.
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Geography is irrelevant.
Humanity is relevant. Democracy is relevant. Liberty is relevant.
Comments
You say the BBC have wronged and defamed Trump. Yes, they have wronged him and people have resigned etc., as per above. Have they defamed him? They misrepresented a detail, but their central thesis — that Trump encouraged violence to disrupt Congress as part of a scheme to overthrow the democratic result — is not defamatory because it’s true. Defamation is a legal term and there’s clearly no defamation case to face in the UK (it’s timed out) and it seems highly unlikely there is any defamation case to answer in the US. So, I don’t think they have defamed him. I don’t think their wrong warrants more than they’ve already done. I don’t think they’ll lose a case (presuming it’s based on the facts and not on government interference).
[OK that's plenty - ed]
He avoids responding to the substance of counter arguments, and restates his opinion.
And then tells you he can't be bothered with details.
That's fine, of course. But it does mean that it's a waste of time trying to argue with his views in this matter.
Ai says this about custodial sentences in E&W.
83,718 offenders received immediate custodial sentences in England and Wales.
While exact breakdowns for theft-specific custodial sentences are not provided, theft contributed to the overall rise in shorter custodial terms.
The largest custodial sentence categories by offence type were:
Violence against the person: ~29,500 offenders (35% of 83,718)
Sexual offences: ~18,400 offenders (22% of 83,718)
Drug offences: ~10,900 offenders (13% of 83,718)
They (and Trump) still blame Biden for stuff that happened in 2020.
This is an excellent observation, Kevin and I can see why many in Trump’s orbit admire you as one of the deep thinkers in the MAGA universe.
Your point would be very clever if Mamdami was actually the mayor of NYC.
https://x.com/cturnbull1968/status/1989732647053283672
This is like saying that Heart of Midlothian are shite compared with Alpha Centauri IV Rovers. It might well be true, if the latter existed ...
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2024-11-19/debates/0DE7E021-D937-40F1-A17E-CAB0B3377C46/Non-CrimeHateIncidents#:~:text=My Lords, so-called non,all this is utterly absurd.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2024-11-19/debates/0DE7E021-D937-40F1-A17E-CAB0B3377C46/Non-CrimeHateIncidents#:~:text=My Lords, so-called non,all this is utterly absurd.
#pbfreespeech
And, yes, these are Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHI), which are a complete waste of the police's time.
So far they've played a commendably straight bat to the threat of the suit.
My house/street/neighbourhood was built about a hundred years ago. But in material ways, it's unrecognisable- the carpets (need to do something about the carpets), the central heating, the extension at the back, the office at the end of the garden. And that's a wider point; I just about remember the late 70s/early 80s, and life was (by modern standards) rubbish for most people. Go back further, and that's even more true.
So if our discontent isn't purely material- what is it? Some of it is bills coming due that we don't want to pay. And some of it is things have stopped seeming to get better. And some of it is moving from the easy bits of the Heirachy of Needs to the difficult bits. We can feed and shelter the world, but giving them meaning... that's tougher. Not helped by plutocrats using money as gaming chips, or by some of the answers to the "meaning" issue demolishing the things that have solved the "material" issue.
It all got messed up with austerity and cutting government spending, perhaps deliberately. But Dave was onto something with the Big Society stuff.
• reports/allegations the police receive,
• that concern hate-related behaviour,
• but do not amount to a crime,
• and are therefore recorded (or historically would have been recorded) as non-crime hate incidents.
They are administrative entries and do not enter the criminal justice pipeline.
THE LAST EVER IPSOS WITH SKS LAB in 2nd
RFM: 33% (-1)
LAB: 18% (-4)
CON: 16% (+2)
GRN: 15% (+3)
LDM: 12% (=)
Via @Ipsos_in_the_UK, 30 Oct - 5 Nov.
Changes w/ 11-17 Sep.
Your Party in fresh trans row
Iqbal Mohamed raised ire of pro-trans co-founder Zarah Sultana by saying ‘hard-won rights of biological women must not be taken away’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/11/16/your-party-in-fresh-trans-row-corbyn-zultana/
Virtually half would be in the Shadow Cabinet.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/profile/Leon
I asked ChatGPT how long he should be banned for and he was told what the consequences would be, but he couldn't control himself.
You might think if there was deliberate attempt, the commander in chief of the most powerful armed forces in the history of humanity would have better outfitted the protestors than a shaman costume and some weirdo Qanon conspiracists.
Terms would be SKS has to be leader at the time of the VI Poll. Which has to be an Ipsos Mori one
Joint 2nd is void
So you win if Lab are clear 2nd during the time SKS is still leader.in an Ipsos Mori Poll
Bet settles in my favour if they have not been in clear 2nd by the time SKS is ousted or resigns.
Is that OK with you
(1) the original Tweeter saw the "hate crime" numbers and thought that they referred to people imprisoned
(2) the original Tweeter just made shit up because it fitted with his worldview
Personally, I suspect (2) is more likely than (1), but either is possible.
16/03/2026 - Rishi Sunak
20/05/2027 - Gordon Brown
16/07/2027 - Theresa May
19/08/2027 - Boris Johnson
I can understand why police might get involved. A complaint is made, maybe it is thought that a crime has been committed. Once it is determined that it hasn't, why should it go on your record?
I suppose Earl of Inverness is also available and closer to his UK family connections.
Westminster Voting Intention:
RFM: 33% (-1)
LAB: 18% (-4)
CON: 16% (+2)
GRN: 15% (+3)
LDM: 12% (=)
Via
@Ipsos_in_the_UK
, 30 Oct - 5 Nov.
Changes w/ 11-17 Sep.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1990003213794205824?s=20
Novartis' new malaria treatment cured 97.4% of patients – more than the current best treatment
It kills resistant parasites, too, and probably blocks transmission better than current drugs
Approval is expected next year!
https://x.com/DrSamuelBHume/status/1988910456182821308
And comparing it with actual drug convictions leading to imprisonment is like comparing Heart of Midlothian FC's scores with those of the the Slough Subbuteo club (you can choose youjr preferred way round).
Buttigieg: If it’s convenient for him to be a fascist, he’ll be a fascist. Maybe later on he’ll go back to being a Silicon Valley Democrat. He’ll be whatever he needs to be.
https://x.com/chyeaok/status/1989390825261076924
A previous activist judgement concerned giving prisoners the right to vote. Those who drew up the Convention were very clear that they did not want to give prisoners any such right and tried to ensure that they did not do so. However, the ECHR decided that every legislature must vote to decide which categories of prisoner should be allowed to vote, and made it clear that the answer "none" was not acceptable. I happen to think that some prisoners should be allowed to vote, but the Court should not have got involved.
Activist judgements by the Court undermine the Convention. They should look at whether a government is actually in breach of the Convention, not try to find ways of interpreting the Convention to push a particular political agenda.
Some complacently took the view that first past the post was the guarantor of political stability. It might be more stable that other systems but it guarantees nothing. We've had the splintering of the vote on the right with irreconcilable positions on Europe, now we have the splintering of the vote on the left with the rise of the Greens and Gaza independents potentially threatening dozens of Labour MPs, including heir presumptive Wes Streeting. As one person put it to me a coalition of culturally conservative minorities alongside people who like to go on naked bike rides.
Reform might be able to win and even govern as the largest minority. But a lot of people really do not like Farage so it's no racing certainty. Maybe splintering into a hundred pieces is better than the US position of two implacable foes - roundheads and cavaliers?
His hands and his conscience are clean.
However, I would restrict the candidates who would be allowed to stand for parliament to those who had sentences left to run of at least, say, ten years.
Did you agree with the decision to go slow on the prosecution of Trump so that he would remain eligible to be GOP candidate in 2024 ?
BASH: We have seen these attacks from the president at other people. It's not new. And I haven't heard you speak out about it until it was directed at you.
MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE: I think that's fair criticism. And I would like to say, humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3m5qwecmb222j
If the UK leaves the ECHR and has our own domestic Supreme Court as ultimate court within a Parliamentary democracy, we'd be lining up with the likes of Albanese, Carney and Luxon, not Putin or Lukashenko who do not lead Parliamentary democracies.
If you think that the ECHR is worth keeping, give a good reason. False comparisons with Russia is not a good reason, when the entire non-European democratic world is not in the ECHR and they are every bit as human and every bit as democratic as we are.
There's been an incredible fragmentation of political opinion everywhere except the US. And it makes it very difficult for anyone to govern effectively.
I would suggest there are two items of good news:
Firstly, we've had political and economic instability before - say the 1970s when there was the combination of the oil shocks and the end of the old Keynesian consensus. We got through that when governments (almost irrespective of their political leanings) began to implement similar policies - such as the loosening of labour markets, a belief in moneterism, and the break up and sale of state monopolies. I.e. we got through these kind of situations before, and we can do it again.
Secondly, we are about to get a long term massive benefit from falling energy prices. One of the big drags on incomes in developed markets has been the impact of China and other emerging markets in commodity prices. Simply: they wanted oil and steel and the like, and that meant we needed to pay more, increasing the costs of living. The solar plus battery revolution (and it really is a revolution) is going to dramatically cut energy prices in the developing world over the next decade.
Although, I guess Vance has had at least five transoformations in the same period of time.
Humanity is relevant.
Democracy is relevant.
Liberty is relevant.