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.
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.
This is not to understand how politics works. Suppose such a HoC is elected, and it could be. Then there will be an attempt to form a government. Then as an MP you will support the proposed government or not. All MPs will either support the government or oppose it and that is how the two party system works. THEN there will be another election when the government falls because it wasn't soundly based. Now ALL the Tories will say one approved TORYISH candidate in each seat, and only one. And they will win a very easy majority. Or else the Socialists will say the same and they will win. The present instability will not last, not even if there is an attempt to entrench it with a so-called proportional representation. In ten years time there will be two main blocks one on the left and one on the right, there might be a mixed up middle but most likely that will be forced to join one of the sides. My guess is that post Farage Reform will have no difficulty working with other right of centre parties.
Of course all the other parties could unite against Reform, as per France. In this country that would be deadly for the Cons, as it has been in France. My guess, in 10 years time, a very long period of right of centre rule but its parantage will be very dodgy.
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?
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.
"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."
"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.
geography is a real blind spot for you isn't it?
Why does geography matter in this context?
If Australia can join Eurovision, they can join the ECHR.
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.
"Fragmentation of political opinion" is a glass half empty way looking at things.
What we're saying is that we've only really been able to engineer a system of stable governance that works if you don't stray from the "big 2" style government-and-opposition party system.
But politics doesn't come in just two main flavours. People have a not-unreasonable expectation of a greater level of choice and a greater level of nuance than that.
What we should be doing is looking at ways of adopting stable systems of governance under multi-party systems, as opposed to (where we're increasingly heading) trying to make sense of how multiple parties all with a similar vote share translate to a system that was only ever really expecting to deal with two main ones.
And if anything what we've seen in recent years is stable governments with large working majorities acting in an unstable way mainly from their own internal pressures, which are more often than not caused by the very need to try and accommodate a wide range of different views within the "broad church" needed to be a successful electoral vehicle under the old expectations.
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.
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.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
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?
Why does geography matter in this context?
Canada etc. ain't in Europe
Which is completely irrelevant.
Canada etc are Parliamentary democracies.
Russia is not a Parliamentary democracy.
We are a Parliamentary democracy.
Democracy is relevant, geography is not.
Geography is absolutely relevant when discussing membership of the ECHR. I refer you to the E component.
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.
Clearly the only answer is an emergency government of senior military officers that will take decisive action to restore social cohesion.
For future reference, the current senior coheir of the late Earl Mountbatten is Norton Louis Philip Knatchbull, 3rd Earl Mountbatten of Burma.
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?
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?
Why does geography matter in this context?
Canada etc. ain't in Europe
Which is completely irrelevant.
Canada etc are Parliamentary democracies.
Russia is not a Parliamentary democracy.
We are a Parliamentary democracy.
Democracy is relevant, geography is not.
Geography is absolutely relevant when discussing membership of the ECHR. I refer you to the E component.
Geography is absolutely 100% irrelevant when it comes to being a Parliamentary democracy.
If we leave the ECHR we will be a Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR.
Other countries that are also Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR: Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Russia is not a Parliamentary democracy.
If we leave the ECHR we will be grouped with other Parliamentary democracies, not dictatorships.
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.
Energy is fungible - as everybody discovered when Ukraine was invaded.
China is building massive solar farms in the Himalayas right now, and they're doing it because it's cheaper than the alternatives. And you won't find a single datacenter being built in China right now that isn't plastered in solar panels.
Every year the price of solar panels falls. And once they've been installed then every year they will keep pumping out electricity.
And, even if you assume that not a single panel is put up in the whole of Europe, them being installed in sunny places cuts the price of electricity in the UK, because it means China needs to import less natural gas.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
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.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
Personally, I think solar + natural gas is almost certainly the cheapest medium term way for the UK to generate power.
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.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
Personally, I think solar + natural gas is almost certainly the cheapest medium term way for the UK to generate power.
The cheapest power in France? La Rance tidal barrage...
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?
By not starting it on day 1.
Instead they finally bothered to do something on day 668.
The Smith special counsel investigation was a special counsel investigation that was opened by U.S. attorney general Merrick Garland on November 18, 2022, three days after Donald Trump announced his campaign for the 2024 United States presidential election.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
To be fair the European Song Contest does feel like cruel and unusual punishment at times.
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.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
Personally, I think solar + natural gas is almost certainly the cheapest medium term way for the UK to generate power.
I don't really see how that can be. The panels can be as cheap as they want - one still needs infrastructure, grid connection, massive back up generation, battery systems or both. It doesn't work at night, its performance is drastically lower in winter when more power is needed, and it is completely unreliable. Those things build in huge ancillary costs that have nothing to do with the cost of buying panels.
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.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
Personally, I think solar + natural gas is almost certainly the cheapest medium term way for the UK to generate power.
I don't really see how that can be. The panels can be as cheap as they want - one still needs infrastructure, grid connection, massive back up generation, battery systems or both. It doesn't work at night, its performance is drastically lower in winter when more power is needed, and it is completely unreliable. Those things build in huge ancillary costs that have nothing to do with the cost of buying panels.
Wheras you can build a nuclear plant for tuppence halfpenny and dispose of its waste free of charge.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
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.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
Personally, I think solar + natural gas is almost certainly the cheapest medium term way for the UK to generate power.
I don't really see how that can be. The panels can be as cheap as they want - one still needs infrastructure, grid connection, massive back up generation, battery systems or both. It doesn't work at night, its performance is drastically lower in winter when more power is needed, and it is completely unreliable. Those things build in huge ancillary costs that have nothing to do with the cost of buying panels.
Wheras you can build a nuclear plant for tuppence halfpenny and dispose of its waste free of charge.
You can certainly build them for a great deal less than we're building them for.
I also see little reason for new sites - we can fill stations that are due for decommissioning with SMRs as their dates come up - they are already built with all the necessary facilities in place.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
To be fair the European Song Contest does feel like cruel and unusual punishment at times.
Lol, yes. And has about as much as its sister org, the ECHR, to do with our failure to control immigration in recent years.
Off topic, but this may explain some US political problems:
If federal officials really wanted to protect maternal and child health, they would instead focus on a far more insidious toxin among expectant moms: cannabis.
Use of the drug during pregnancy has soared in the past two decades. From 2002 to 2020, the share of women who consumed it in their first trimester rose from 6.3 percent to 16 percent. Among those in their final trimester, the practice more than doubled, from 2 percent to 4.7 percent. Results from a 2022-2023 survey published this year found that 14.6 percent of pregnant women and 12.5 percent of breastfeeding moms said they had used cannabis in the past three months.
This increase occurred despite ample evidence of the drug’s harms on babies.
According to Leana Wen, there are long term effects that might make rational thinking -- among voters and politicians -- less common.
Please note that I said "may" and "might". I am not a medical expert, much less one on this subject, but I have always found Dr. Wen to be sensible in her commentary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leana_Wen
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
To be fair the European Song Contest does feel like cruel and unusual punishment at times.
Lol, yes. And has about as much as its sister org, the ECHR, to do with our failure to control immigration in recent years.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
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.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
Yes, but he said some other stuff. That's just the plausible deniability bit. You can't just take one isolated sentence from a 50 minute speech and make it stand for the whole.
Personally, I don't think he thought he could overturn the result, but tried to push it to see how far it would go. A bit of a trial run.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
Like he'd say "go riot!". Cmon. Give the man some credit.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
Yes, but he said some other stuff. That's just the plausible deniability bit. You can't just take one isolated sentence from a 50 minute speech and make it stand for the whole.
Personally, I don't think he thought he could overturn the result, but tried to push it to see how far it would go. A bit of a trial run.
A trial run for what? He won again, through fair and proper means. The Republic stands, and will stand again when congress get a swing back Democrat majority and will hold again when someone else wins next time round.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
Yes, but he said some other stuff. That's just the plausible deniability bit. You can't just take one isolated sentence from a 50 minute speech and make it stand for the whole.
Personally, I don't think he thought he could overturn the result, but tried to push it to see how far it would go. A bit of a trial run.
A trial run for what? He won again, through fair and proper means. The Republic stands, and will stand again when congress get a swing back Democrat majority and will hold again when someone else wins next time round.
For what? For in case he needs the mob on his side. The Republic still stands in the same way as the Republic still stood when Caesar accepted his first Dictatorship in 49BC
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.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
Have you actually read the full speech?
He says many, many other things and anyone who thinks that the totality is not a call for the violent overturning of the election through intimidation of Congress is not reading it carefully enough.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
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.
Energy is fungible - as everybody discovered when Ukraine was invaded.
China is building massive solar farms in the Himalayas right now, and they're doing it because it's cheaper than the alternatives. And you won't find a single datacenter being built in China right now that isn't plastered in solar panels.
Every year the price of solar panels falls. And once they've been installed then every year they will keep pumping out electricity.
And, even if you assume that not a single panel is put up in the whole of Europe, them being installed in sunny places cuts the price of electricity in the UK, because it means China needs to import less natural gas.
Yeah but can't you see the issue here? The countries most committed to reducing carbon emissions are the ones with the least ability to use solar.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
Yes, but he said some other stuff. That's just the plausible deniability bit. You can't just take one isolated sentence from a 50 minute speech and make it stand for the whole.
Personally, I don't think he thought he could overturn the result, but tried to push it to see how far it would go. A bit of a trial run.
A trial run for what? He won again, through fair and proper means. The Republic stands, and will stand again when congress get a swing back Democrat majority and will hold again when someone else wins next time round.
For what? For in case he needs the mob on his side. The Republic still stands in the same way as the Republic still stood when Caesar accepted his first Dictatorship in 49BC
So the man we can all conclude is a bit of a low impulse control fool, who is starting to show his age, is in actual fact playing some kind of 4D chess? TDS. Fully confirmed. It might be too far gone to operate.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
you didn't have a load of tooled up supporters on a protest march outside your council HQ tho did you?
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He sat and watched it without intervening. He pardoned the perpetrators, calling them great patriotic Americans.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
you didn't have a load of tooled up supporters on a protest march outside your council HQ tho did you?
His supporters weren't tooled up either. The most armed nation on the planet, and nobody thought about arming the people there? This is deranged drivel. We can agree 1) he is a selfish shit 2) he was a sore loser and wanted to put pressure on congress to not confirm the result 3) he rallied the protestors about an injustice and wrongly claimed the election was stolen.
But this is not the same as intentionally causing a riot, intentionally causing violence, or even expecting the protestors to turn violent. It was not an insurrection. It was a wound up protest that got out of control, the amount of violence on display was no less or more for that kind of event, and the overwhelming of the security at the Capitol was unexpected. There was no gameplan to all this, no pre planning. It got out of control.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
you didn't have a load of tooled up supporters on a protest march outside your council HQ tho did you?
His supporters weren't tooled up either. The most armed nation on the planet, and nobody thought about arming the people there? This is deranged drivel. We can agree 1) he is a selfish shit 2) he was a sore loser and wanted to put pressure on congress to not confirm the result 3) he rallied the protestors about an injustice and wrongly claimed the election was stolen.
But this is not the same as intentionally causing a riot, intentionally causing violence, or even expecting the protestors to turn violent. It was not an insurrection. It was a wound up protest that got out of control, the amount of violence on display was no less or more for that kind of event, and the overwhelming of the security at the Capitol was unexpected. There was no gameplan to all this, no pre planning. It got out of control.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
tell that to the families of the people who died
Now you are resorting to emotion. The only person that died that day was an unarmed female protester shot by a policeman shooting blindly into the crowd.
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.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
If the price ends up being that low, we'll end up in a scenario where we generate 5x as much energy in the summer as we do in the winter. People are already building fences with old panels.
Will completely transform the economy in ways none of us can yet comprehend.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
Don't forget that the EU itself is outside the ECHR.
A lot of the blame is put on John Birt. The Tories probably liked him because of his background in commercial television but he was something of a revolutionary when it came to his attitude to journalism.
Labour hire people who make the BBC biased and the Tories hire people who (intentionally or otherwise) make it s***.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
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.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
There’s a startup in the US trying to setup a modular direct solar-to-methane system.
No power electronics - raw DC from the panels into the methane generator. Just needs water - uses atmospheric CO2.
The idea is that it may be inefficient and yield low. But reduce cost/complexity enough and you just put thousands of the things out 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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
tell that to the families of the people who died
Now you are resorting to emotion. The only person that died that day was an unarmed female protester shot by a policeman shooting blindly into the crowd.
Now that is not merely sophistry, but nasty sophistry. Or have you forgotten the rioters assaulted a police officer who died from his injuries the following day? Did his death not count because he was standing up for law and order not the deranged fantasies of a violent loser?
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
tell that to the families of the people who died
Now you are resorting to emotion. The only person that died that day was an unarmed female protester shot by a policeman shooting blindly into the crowd.
Now that is not merely sophistry, but nasty sophistry. Or have you forgotten the rioters assaulted a police officer who died from his injuries the following day? Did his death not count because he was standing up for law and order not the deranged fantasies of a violent loser?
Please do tell us these injuries that the police officer died of. Also tell us what the coroner determined the cause of death.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal 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.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
I read it as he wanted the election result overturned.
He wasn’t quite up for openly advocating armed revolution. But would have been happy if the rioters had lynched his opponents.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
tell that to the families of the people who died
Now you are resorting to emotion. The only person that died that day was an unarmed female protester shot by a policeman shooting blindly into the crowd.
Now that is not merely sophistry, but nasty sophistry. Or have you forgotten the rioters assaulted a police officer who died from his injuries the following day? Did his death not count because he was standing up for law and order not the deranged fantasies of a violent loser?
Please do tell us these injuries that the police officer died of. Also tell us what the coroner determined the cause of death.
Perhaps you would care to suggest why your claim that 'The only person that died that day was an unarmed female protester shot by a policeman shooting blindly into the crowd.' which is literally true but as I noted highly misleading* is not in itself TDS as it is, after all, pushing the lines of Trump, who is clearly deranged?
*Because of the law in America, it was put down as 'natural causes' because the injuries from the pepper sprays used by these criminals you have claimed were unarmed brought on a sereis of strokes. It was noted however that they were caused by the attack which the coroner also noted was the cause of his death.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
I read it as he wanted the election result overturned.
He wasn’t quite up for openly advocating armed revolution. But would have been happy if the rioters had lynched his opponents.
“Who will rid me of this troublesome priestcongress?”
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
I read it as he wanted the election result overturned.
He wasn’t quite up for openly advocating armed revolution. But would have been happy if the rioters had lynched his opponents.
And yet his drivers gave evidence that when he heard about the riot, he wanted to join in and actually had to be restrained from doing so.
I don't think it particularly matters exactly what Trump did or didn't say on the day of the Capitol insurgence, protest of whatever you like to call it.
The salient fact is that Trump encouraged his supporters to believe that the election had been 'stolen', and that a democratic election result should be over-turned. That's all that matters. He wasn't just a bad loser, he was a danger to democracy.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
And it took a New Founding Father, Dan Quayle, to save the Republic at that point.
Pence phoned Quayle who he trusted. Quayle, who knew his man, persuaded him that it was his religious duty (via his oath of office) to uphold the law, no matter the cost.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
yes because they ARE NOT IN EUROPE.
jfc
SO WHAT!?
Stop being parochial.
Human rights is more important than your petty parochial obsession with meaningless geography.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
I cannot believe the North Britons have blown a 21 point lead against Argentina.
Shameful scenes at Murrayfield.
I have to admit it's nice to see other fans going through some pain.
I apologise for tipping Japan at 4-1 yesterday which turned out not to be a winner - though I'm sure no patriotic Brit would have countenanced such a bet.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
And it took a New Founding Father, Dan Quayle, to save the Republic at that point.
Pence phoned Quayle who he trusted. Quayle, who knew his man, persuaded him that it was his religious duty (via his oath of office) to uphold the law, no matter the cost.
A sign of decency under the pressure of such a selfish shit. Pence was at a Conservative Party event in Newcastle a few days ago. A few friends say he came across as solid and inspirational individual.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
I cannot believe in the space of 20 mins it's gone from Scotland 21 - 0 Argentina to Scotland 24 - 33 Argentina.
@CumberlandGap may have fought an election but I assume he doesn’t literally have a killer instinct. The Scottish rugby team also don’t have a killer instinct. It has been our biggest failure for many years.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
Indeed you can't read it that way but that wasn't what Trump said. It was invented by Michael Prescott in his dodgy dossier much quoted by the Telegraph and others. What Trump actually said clearly was an incitement, which is presumably why Prescott changed it:
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
Trump mentioned fighting about twenty times in his speech. Again this isn't accidental. He was clearly inciting the crowd.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
Like he'd say "go riot!". Cmon. Give the man some credit.
Yes, it was extremely disobliging of him not to say that - good job the BBC sorted it.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
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.
The transformation of MTG is one of the most extraordinary things I've ever seen.
Although, I guess Vance has had at least five transoformations in the same period of time.
I'm speculating but I suspect that MTG may have been influenced by Erika Kirk who forgave her husband's attackers and asked for reconciliation among the American people. They are both religious.
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.
If nothing else, fairly basic economic theory suggests that if the places where there is lots of viable solar start using it in place of oil and gas, the demand reduction should reduce the price of oil and gas across the board, including for places (like the UK) where solar isn't very viable (the reality for the UK is that it works fine in for 2/3rds of the year, but is essentially useless in the winter).
It isn’t useless in winter. You just need more panels.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option. 2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through. 3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
That's the bit that I don't think anyone really expected- or if they did, they didn't join the dots to realise the implications. It's not quite pour sand into a factory and solar panels come out the other end, but it's pretty close. And whilst they degrade a bit over time, it's a pretty slow process.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and the pressure he put on his followers to get it back for him.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
And it took a New Founding Father, Dan Quayle, to save the Republic at that point.
Pence phoned Quayle who he trusted. Quayle, who knew his man, persuaded him that it was his religious duty (via his oath of office) to uphold the law, no matter the cost.
A sign of decency under the pressure of such a selfish shit. Pence was at a Conservative Party event in Newcastle a few days ago. A few friends say he came across as solid and inspirational individual.
Pence is a hyper right, religious nut. He is, however, honest in his beliefs - at least according to those who've met him.
Quayle framed it as a choice between Doing Evil and Potential Martyrdom. Which in Pence's world made it no choice.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Well answer me this then. How, if we weren't in Europe, could we even think about leaving the ECHR? We couldn't. Ergo it not only does matter that we're in Europe, it's central to the debate.
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.
There were charges and his actions leading up to that day, and on that day, were the basis of them. Furthermore he chose to pardon the rioters, describing them as "patriots and great Americans". He escaped a trial because he was reelected. If he wants to see the allegations resurrected and litigated in court via a libel hearing, fair enough and he should go for it. I doubt he does.
He escaped a trial? Is this the new "the Russians are going to expose him anyday now"?
Total TDS. Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
And the subsequent "fight like hell" - when the steal was not happening?
Because "fight like hell" is a political metaphor used pretty much by every person who is involved in politics. I once was selected to fight a council seat. I can confirm, under oath, no actual fighting took place, though when i lost narrowly, my compatriots did tell me I put up a good fight. And we would beat them next time, which I did. But having won, I can reassure you, that nobody actually had a beating.
And yet an awful lot of people marched over to the Capitol and were... much less than peaceful. Something made them really really cross, and it can't have been a BBC programme broadcast several years later.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
He wound them up, told them something was been stolen from them and to protest. But that is not treason, it was irresponsible and most absolutely belittled his office. But there was no way you can claim he knew that the protest would turn violent or that he wanted it to, or as some even crazier believe that it was pre-planned.
He literally told them to bully his own Vice PResident into breaking the law to overthrow the government or, as he put it, 'do the right thing.'
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
H was trying to bully his VP to not confirm (as he saw it, or tried to persuade the crowd) a stolen election, not to physically prevent him but to apply pressure through protest.
That is not true. Read the speech. Watch the speech. He absolutely was calling for physical threat.
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
You're right. He repeated several times that they were stealing the election which he had won by millions of votes. They could have cut it anywhere they liked and it would have sounded as bad. The meaning was incontrovertable, If he wants this to be investigated with a microscope while a case against the BBC is brought the man's a fool. It'll remind them of what a despicable crook he is and the lies he told to steal the election and get his followers to get it back for him.
Thanks for your comment on the Goering film earlier. I’ll probably not bother,
It has a histrionic air that the Staffenburg film (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0985699/) managed to avoid - despite having Tom Cruise in the lead role. The decision in the latter film to have the majority English speaking cast speak in their own accents was exactly right as well.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Geography exists dude. Stop pretending it doesn't. Do you also believe your next door neighbours don't exist?
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
Don't forget that the EU itself is outside the ECHR.
That sounds like a technicality. It'll join once it's a country. Or not if it wants to oppress people with total impunity.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
Don't forget that the EU itself is outside the ECHR.
That sounds like a technicality. It'll join once it's a country. Or not if it wants to oppress people with total impunity.
History is full of countries with constitutions stuffed to bursting with protections for the common man.
The enforcement is another issue. See the Soviet Union.
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.
Are you confusing the ECHR with the Eurovision Song Contest?
No, I am discussing Human Rights, the HR in ECHR is infinitely more important than the E.
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
Nice try. But it's pretty clear you were thinking about Eurovision.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
So frigging what that we are in Europe? Stop being so parochial.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
But only Russia and Belarus in the relevant location of Europe. Imagine your beloved white Commonwealth countries, Can Aus NZ, were in Europe. Would they join Russia and Belarus outside the ECHR, do we think?
What is relevant is democracy, not your pathetic parochialism.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
Yes but those Parliamentary democracies aren't in Europe, so it's kinda pointless to use their existence in this argument.
No its not, as what matters more - geography or human rights?
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
I care about reality and the reality is we are in Europe. If we choose to leave the ECHR then we join the club of European countries not in the ECHR with Russia and Belarus. That is reality. You are probably one of those Brexiteers who thought it was as easy to trade with New Zealand as it is with Ireland.
That we are in Europe is a meaningless geographical small minded parochialism.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
This is not the point. The point is that to leave the ECHR will firstly make us something of a pariah. It would weaken an institution that is incredibly annoying at times but, on balance, a good thing. If we withdraw from the ECHR we will need to have a replacement, a British code of human rights. Which, once again, would require many of the debates, the arguments that have already been won, to be decided once again on slightly different but no doubt very similar wording.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
The point will be shown, fairly soon, if the Government actually follows through with Going Danish.
They will be blocked in the courts, using provisions of the ECHR, despite the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds.
Comments
He would negotiate it up to 72t
Of course all the other parties could unite against Reform, as per France. In this country that would be deadly for the Cons, as it has been in France. My guess, in 10 years time, a very long period of right of centre rule but its parantage will be very dodgy.
Liverpool, Canning, Goderich, Wellington, Grey, Melbourne, Peel, Melbourne again.
Not counting Wellington again in 1832 and 1834.
What we're saying is that we've only really been able to engineer a system of stable governance that works if you don't stray from the "big 2" style government-and-opposition party system.
But politics doesn't come in just two main flavours. People have a not-unreasonable expectation of a greater level of choice and a greater level of nuance than that.
What we should be doing is looking at ways of adopting stable systems of governance under multi-party systems, as opposed to (where we're increasingly heading) trying to make sense of how multiple parties all with a similar vote share translate to a system that was only ever really expecting to deal with two main ones.
And if anything what we've seen in recent years is stable governments with large working majorities acting in an unstable way mainly from their own internal pressures, which are more often than not caused by the very need to try and accommodate a wide range of different views within the "broad church" needed to be a successful electoral vehicle under the old expectations.
Canada etc are Parliamentary democracies.
Russia is not a Parliamentary democracy.
We are a Parliamentary democracy.
Democracy is relevant, geography is not.
https://appleinsider.com/articles/25/11/14/costly-iphone-pocket-sells-out-nearly-immediately
For future reference, the current senior coheir of the late Earl Mountbatten is Norton Louis Philip Knatchbull, 3rd Earl Mountbatten of Burma.
Pitt, Addington, Pitt, Grenville, Portland, Perceval, Liverpool.
Admittedly Pitt and Perceval both died in office.
If we leave the ECHR we will be a Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR.
Other countries that are also Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR: Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
Russia is not a Parliamentary democracy.
If we leave the ECHR we will be grouped with other Parliamentary democracies, not dictatorships.
China is building massive solar farms in the Himalayas right now, and they're doing it because it's cheaper than the alternatives. And you won't find a single datacenter being built in China right now that isn't plastered in solar panels.
Every year the price of solar panels falls. And once they've been installed then every year they will keep pumping out electricity.
And, even if you assume that not a single panel is put up in the whole of Europe, them being installed in sunny places cuts the price of electricity in the UK, because it means China needs to import less natural gas.
Instead they finally bothered to do something on day 668.
The Smith special counsel investigation was a special counsel investigation that was opened by U.S. attorney general Merrick Garland on November 18, 2022, three days after Donald Trump announced his campaign for the 2024 United States presidential election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_special_counsel_investigation
I am not alone in pointing this out:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/07/trump-legal-failures-blame-column-00187945
https://www.newsweek.com/merrick-garland-blame-donald-trump-jan6-case-dropped-1991694
Russia does not respect human rights, did not even when it was an ECHR member. It is not a Parliamentary democracy and was not even when it was an ECHR member.
Only an idiot thinks geography trumps human rights.
We are a Parliamentary democracy with human rights, whether we are in the ECHR or not. Just like Canada. Just like Australia. Just like New Zealand. Not at all like Russia.
I also see little reason for new sites - we can fill stations that are due for decommissioning with SMRs as their dates come up - they are already built with all the necessary facilities in place.
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/11/04/cannabis-marijuana-pregnancy-risks-danger/
Please note that I said "may" and "might". I am not a medical expert, much less one on this subject, but I have always found Dr. Wen to be sensible in her commentary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leana_Wen
Total TDS.
Trump is a selfish shit, who should not be near any power, he cares for little but himself, and most certainly did want the election results over turned. Either he genuinely believed the results to have been cheated, or thought it was close enough he might persuade others. But the purpose of the rally was to put pressure on the senators to not confirm the result. It was irresponsible and the kind of behaviour of a sore loser.
You cannot escape from this:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
I'll post it again, so you can read it again:
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
It is not possible to read this, and conclude that he was calling for a violent insurrection or expected one. It was a demonstration that got out of control, and then was milked relentlessly.
This is why the connector to Morocco etc died.
1) solar panels are very cheap. Cheaper than some grades of plywood. A friend used a couple for a replacement shed roof - because they were the cheap option.
2) the electronics to produce A/C are more expensive, but scale well. That is, the cost doesn’t go up linearly to the amount of power going through.
3) if you are in a low solar flux location, you need *the same amount of power electronics* (the more expensive bit, but more panels (the cheap as chips bit)
For battery backup - the same.
We are at the point where solar+battery is the cheap option for generating capacity.
But anyway, yes, if we left the ECHR we'd still be a European democracy. A rather special one in fact - we'd be the only European democracy not in the ECHR. The others in that tiny club are repressive autocracies.
There are many Parliamentary democracies not in the ECHR around the planet.
Personally, I don't think he thought he could overturn the result, but tried to push it to see how far it would go. A bit of a trial run.
When panels are expensive, you can only hope to put them up in pretty optimal locations- they're the only ones with a remotely plausible ROI. Once they are madly, beautifully cheap, you might as well put them everywhere. Even if European solar is twice as expensive as Moroccan solar (and the difference can't be that big, can it?), twice not very much is still not very much.
As for me, I'm wondering what the business world will do once there are regular (but intermittent) large amounts of excess electricity needing to find a use.
He says many, many other things and anyone who thinks that the totality is not a call for the violent overturning of the election through intimidation of Congress is not reading it carefully enough.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
Mao claimed on many occasions to be an agricultural expert. If, however, we judge him by his actions...
jfc
TDS. Fully confirmed. It might be too far gone to operate.
Maybe they were all a bit hard of hearing.
We can agree
1) he is a selfish shit
2) he was a sore loser and wanted to put pressure on congress to not confirm the result
3) he rallied the protestors about an injustice and wrongly claimed the election was stolen.
But this is not the same as intentionally causing a riot, intentionally causing violence, or even expecting the protestors to turn violent. It was not an insurrection. It was a wound up protest that got out of control, the amount of violence on display was no less or more for that kind of event, and the overwhelming of the security at the Capitol was unexpected. There was no gameplan to all this, no pre planning. It got out of control.
That is treason.
I'm definitely seeing TDS but it's not from @kinabalu .
Will completely transform the economy in ways none of us can yet comprehend.
https://quillette.com/2025/11/14/a-journalism-of-deception-bbc-deborah-turness-tim-davie/
A lot of the blame is put on John Birt. The Tories probably liked him because of his background in commercial television but he was something of a revolutionary when it came to his attitude to journalism.
Labour hire people who make the BBC biased and the Tories hire people who (intentionally or otherwise) make it s***.
No power electronics - raw DC from the panels into the methane generator. Just needs water - uses atmospheric CO2.
The idea is that it may be inefficient and yield low. But reduce cost/complexity enough and you just put thousands of the things out there…
He may not have expected it to go so far as it did. After all, he's as dim as Cummings. But he clearly meant for the protests to put heavy pressure on and 'peacefully and patriotically' is being ripped out of context to try and conceal it.
He wasn’t quite up for openly advocating armed revolution. But would have been happy if the rioters had lynched his opponents.
Shameful scenes at Murrayfield.
*Because of the law in America, it was put down as 'natural causes' because the injuries from the pepper sprays used by these criminals you have claimed were unarmed brought on a sereis of strokes. It was noted however that they were caused by the attack which the coroner also noted was the cause of his death.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61970258
The salient fact is that Trump encouraged his supporters to believe that the election had been 'stolen', and that a democratic election result should be over-turned. That's all that matters. He wasn't just a bad loser, he was a danger to democracy.
Pence phoned Quayle who he trusted. Quayle, who knew his man, persuaded him that it was his religious duty (via his oath of office) to uphold the law, no matter the cost.
Stop being parochial.
Human rights is more important than your petty parochial obsession with meaningless geography.
It does not matter one jot that we are in Europe.
We can choose freely and democratically to be in the ECHR, or not. Either way, we will be a free democracy.
Just like many Parliamentary democracies around the globe.
And colour is not relevant to it.
I apologise for tipping Japan at 4-1 yesterday which turned out not to be a winner - though I'm sure no patriotic Brit would have countenanced such a bet.
We’re gonna walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them.
Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated.
I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
Trump mentioned fighting about twenty times in his speech. Again this isn't accidental. He was clearly inciting the crowd.
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial
If you don't care about human rights, then the ECHR is moot.
If you do care about human rights, then we belong with them and not Russia as their existence trumps geography.
It seems you care about geography to the exclusion of human rights, which defeats the entire point of the ECHR. HR is more important than E.
The reality is if we are outside of the ECHR we will be one of many Parliamentary democracies around the globe that is not in the ECHR. That is reality.
There are many Euler diagrams to represent nations. Some do have the UK as being unique. Even if you want to obsess about Europe alone, we would be in a set of 1 of being European Parliamentary democracy not in the ECHR, not with Russia and Belarus who are not Parliamentary democracies. That is reality.
Quayle framed it as a choice between Doing Evil and Potential Martyrdom. Which in Pence's world made it no choice.
What would be the point of this? I really cannot see it.
The enforcement is another issue. See the Soviet Union.
They will be blocked in the courts, using provisions of the ECHR, despite the same actions in Denmark not being blocked on those grounds.
At that point, something gives.