I don't think burning the accused to death at the stake is within the range of their powers.
He will be rightly killed in prison with any luck like Ian Watkins was.
Quite likely but this is another failure of the criminal justice system if it cannot keep inmates (and staff) safe from attacks or gang or Islamist recruitment (often as a sort of protection racket against violence).
The end of the sentence left hanging, but pretty obviously “…not Britain”.
Bizarre though when a. The Soviet Union was the ally, not Russia, and b. It was a communist state that outlawed organised religion.
It is not bizarre. It is a collection of the worlds richest billionaires working out how they can share the most power. Religion and politics are tools not objectives.
It's still rank stupidity, even in that context. The voice of experience:
https://x.com/Billbrowder/status/1995051199259635921 The Wall Street Journal alleges that the real motivation behind Trump’s eagerness to force Ukraine into an ugly surrender is the idea that a lot of people close to him can make a lot of money doing business and deals in Russia.
If this is true, beyond the disgusting morality of this and the huge geopolitical risks that it creates, none of these people salivating over their future riches are going to make a penny, and perhaps do a lot worse.
I was once the largest foreign investor in Russia and I can say with certainty that the Russians aren’t going to let anyone profit in any way. They will talk nice at the outset to attract the investment, but once it’s there, they will steal, defraud, arrest, torture or even kill to make sure that no American makes any money. I’ve seen it so many times it’s almost universal.
So, this shocking initiative is not only terrible policy, it’s spectacularly stupid business.
Perhaps. But on the other hand, Bill Browder wasn't besties with a US President who saw his office as a means to self-enrichment, and foreign policy as a way to settle personal scores.
When American investors have the US military at their back the outcome might be somewhat different, although as mafia boss fallings-out go, that would be epic.
I don't think burning the accused to death at the stake is within the range of their powers.
I'm wondering what to make of that post. Are you seriously suggesting that burning at the stake should be an acceptable punishment in this case? Or any case, indeed?
- a jury would might want that punishment inflicted - They can’t have it
Sentencing is extremely constrained by the guidelines. You can find them online.
You can work out the sentencing yourself, if you like. They are written in fairly simple English and generally don’t require arcane legal knowledge to understand.
They are a part of the justice system that I agree with - public, understandable and quite reasonable, really.
And if you read sentencing remarks for various cases, they are peppered with references to the sentencing guidelines - severity classification, mitigation (if any) etc.
I don't think burning the accused to death at the stake is within the range of their powers.
He will be rightly killed in prison with any luck like Ian Watkins was.
No, criminals should serve the sentence imposed by the court not the mob and those who killed Watkins have of course been charged with murder even if many won't be too upset by their actions
One of the few banks that avoided a bailout or being nationalised or needing a credit guarantee loan in 2008 though. Brendan Nelson is a qualified Chartered Accountant with lots of City experience so probably looks the best choice. Osborne has his Chancellor experience and a few board roles but studied History not Economics and does not have an MBA, or banking or accountancy qualifications
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Only Jenrick if he replaced Kemi would even consider a formal Tory and Reform pact pre GE and Cleverly and Stride might not even back Farage to be PM post GE if a hung parliament but abstain
Scenario 1: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (20%) Result - 400 seats to the Reformed Conservative Party. 100 seats to LD - the official opposition. Chance of it happening 60%x75%x20% about 10%?
Scenario 2: Kemi does not step before next election, or if she does, Cleverley is the next leader (50% chance?) Tory leader succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (zero chance) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 50%?
Scenario 3: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick does not succeed in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (80%) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 40%?
The chances of Kemi stepping down are dropping rapidly. She's already got the Tories regularly ahead of Labour. If she can start reducing the gap to Reform, she'll be kept on.
In the last 20 polls on the Wikipedia page, the Tories are ahead of Labour on 5, tied on 3, and behind on 12.
So presumably, by ruling out a return to the Two Power Standard (RN bigger than the next 2 navies), we are on the successive standard of having a fleet 60% bigger than the next naval power.
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
Municipal corporations were a part of the bedrock of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
As a self proclaimed soft Libertarian, although not of the Propertarian bent that Bart seems to espouse I have to say I very much like Doug's idea of bottom up governance. Only those things that cannot be achieved at the lower tier should be elevated to a higher tier.
My only difference is that in this system I still see a place for the Nation State to provide the legal and security framework within which it all happens. That is not something I think can be done effectively or democratically at a Supra national level.
But most decisions being made at a municipal, town or parish level is very much something to be aspired to.
Except UK is full of retired NIMBYs, who are much easier to fight on a national policy level (not that anyone is) than a local one. I think that's a lot of where Bart's coming from.
The ideologically libertarian way to put this is that if you need the government to make rules, they should be objective and generalized. If you need a lot of local knowledge to make decisions properly, you're probably micromanaging too much.
A practical way to see this distinction is if you compare Japan, which has planning rules but they're mostly like "if there is a slope, your building must be at least twice as far from the slope as the height of the slope, and this will be checked by a man with a tape measure", with Britain, which has rules like "you should not be out of character with the general vibe of the place, and a committee of elderly people will tell you whether what you want to build does that or not".
A new build near me. The back garden will have a similar drop! The site slopes badly and the original plan was to use the slope to build 'hobbit houses' part built into the slope. Someone must have pointed out, they'd never sell so they have been removed from the plan.
Locals had been fighting developments here for decades based on the poor layout of the site and the lack of capacity at the sewage treatment plan but this was overruled by the council. Hope those at the bottom of the slope have good drainage as the runoffs here when it rains can be biblical.
The end of the sentence left hanging, but pretty obviously “…not Britain”.
Bizarre though when a. The Soviet Union was the ally, not Russia, and b. It was a communist state that outlawed organised religion.
It is not bizarre. It is a collection of the worlds richest billionaires working out how they can share the most power. Religion and politics are tools not objectives.
Are they different? Surely religion is a political construct where those interpreting 'the word' hold the power over the adherents. Any that dare challenge that power are dealt with.
Why do they draw the Rugby World Cup so early? It's nearly two years away, the team rankings could be very different in October 2027 to the seedings used for the draw.
Can some colleague of a techie disposition help me, I wonder. I have a Mac desktop, an iPhone and an iPad. I can access pb on the latter, but, alas, no longer on the desktop or the iPhone. Anyone an idea why? The desktop message is that “Safari can’t open the page! The BBC and Guardian pages, for example, open normally. As does Facebook.
Comments and advice, especially the latter, very welcome.
Badenoch punchy again at PMQs, as suspected. Thought the stuff about the OBR got lost in the fog of debate but she was very good on the two child benefit stuff at the end. Starmer is being made to look very flat-footed by her now and he didn’t manage to rally his MPs at all (bit concerning when she was going after his leadership). He needs to up his game.
Not my take at all. Badenoch’s leadership of the party is too much opposition calling for resignations in every breath. It’s all gossipy and fluff and rudeness - where’s the gravitas? When it comes to preparing for PMQs or aligning with clear strategy on policy, they seem to just take everything off the front page of the daily mail.
For all the talk of Kemigasm, her only announcement on economic policy which stands out is Cavemen didn’t have a welfare state.
Kemi has some of what Thatcher had at least on the first point, she would cross the road to get in an argument or start a fight
Except that’s not true, Thatcher picked her battles wisely.
For example she caved into the miners in 1981 because the government wasn’t ready for a strike, by 1984 the government was well prepared and crushed the miners.
Thatcher still fought the miners unions but yes she was clever enough to know when she was ready to go on the attack and when she needed to build resources first
TSE is absolutely right. I have studied Lady Thatcher, I feel I know Lady Thatcher, and Kemi Badenoch ain’t no Lady Thatcher.
Kemi and her team need to go back and study Lady Thatcher in 70s and 80s and learn that it was all based on substance.
All Kemi and her team are doing is the Farage waving angry fist tactic, which only Reform can get away with precisely because they are not Labour or the Conservatives, who are the ones Farage is waving his angry fist at for their time in government.
I’ll give you classic example of this difference, Kemi more Farage than Thatcher from just over an hour ago. Well if you can look beyond how angry and salty Kemi is coming across to what she is actually saying, the attack line at PMQs was to bash Starmer with media report an unnamed minster complained about being beaten up and done over by Reeves as she built the additional headroom and borrowing repayment the markets loved and the 2 child cap lift sop for own party at same time.
If you can’t see what is wrong with that let me explain it. When Kemi is PM she will actually want her chancellor to strong arm cabinet colleagues to build the budget war chest that builds additional headroom pays off borrowing the market loves and the tax cut sop to her own party.
What you are praising isn’t actual substance, it’s just fluff the growth industry of political media likes.
Seeing Nigel’s angry fist waved at them and in turn waving their own angry fist at Labour does won’t work for the Conservatives. They need to be for something, they need to be distinct, they need policy differentials. They need to stop living in the moment and work NOW on that distinct and for something identity 3rd May 2029.
Edit. Going out to talk to sheep, they have more political acumen.
Can some colleague of a techie disposition help me, I wonder. I have a Mac desktop, an iPhone and an iPad. I can access pb on the latter, but, alas, no longer on the desktop or the iPhone. Anyone an idea why? The desktop message is that “Safari can’t open the page! The BBC and Guardian pages, for example, open normally. As does Facebook.
Comments and advice, especially the latter, very welcome.
Can some colleague of a techie disposition help me, I wonder. I have a Mac desktop, an iPhone and an iPad. I can access pb on the latter, but, alas, no longer on the desktop or the iPhone. Anyone an idea why? The desktop message is that “Safari can’t open the page! The BBC and Guardian pages, for example, open normally. As does Facebook.
Comments and advice, especially the latter, very welcome.
On the laptop, try to open a “Private Browser” in Safari (from the File menu at the top of the screen), and see if the site opens from there. You’ll need to log in again.
Tl:dr -> austerity not hyperinflation led to the rise of the Nazis/far right.
Grrr - I've just spent 15 mins trying to access this by setting up a new limited free views account but no, nothing I try will let me read this article without a paid subscription.
A modest proposal - if a formal enquiry is begun into a police officer, government official or any other public employee, their retirement is frozen until the end of the enquiry.
Freeze the pension and legislate for financial penalties if the hearing finds culpability post departure would be a better option.
Hmmm.
I was thinking more of impalement combined with crucifixion, while waiting for the outcome of the tribunal.
But your suggestion can go on The List.
Would be a cruel and unusual punishment given the length of time of some public inquiries, many of which the involvement of any particular PC Murdoch is only incidental.
I don't think burning the accused to death at the stake is within the range of their powers.
I'm wondering what to make of that post. Are you seriously suggesting that burning at the stake should be an acceptable punishment in this case? Or any case, indeed?
For cyclists ignoring pedestrian red lights, it should be mandatory.
I believe it is already mandatory for cyclists to ignore red lights... oh, that's not what you meant!
Tin foil hat a moment, this man was arrested but has absolutely no digital footprint anywhere outside of the news reports of the last 48 hours. A man who likes to take videos and share them on social media (what got him captured) would have clues all over the place.
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
Municipal corporations were a part of the bedrock of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
As a self proclaimed soft Libertarian, although not of the Propertarian bent that Bart seems to espouse I have to say I very much like Doug's idea of bottom up governance. Only those things that cannot be achieved at the lower tier should be elevated to a higher tier.
My only difference is that in this system I still see a place for the Nation State to provide the legal and security framework within which it all happens. That is not something I think can be done effectively or democratically at a Supra national level.
But most decisions being made at a municipal, town or parish level is very much something to be aspired to.
(Teasing hat on.)
Ah yes, the principle of subsidiarity, as enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992.
Some of you really need to be more down with the kids. Here is a recent Sabrina Carpenter pop video, entitled "Manchild" (#1 in the UK and US, and #97 in Italy):
Sometimes it takes a post to realise a great truth. Barty is the anti-Doug. Or Doug is the anti-Barty if you prefer. While Barty's libertarianism suggests local govt should be abolished in favour of national, I believe the opposite. If I were arrogant enough to draft a proposal for a well organised society, I'd posit that municipalities should be the primary unit of political organisation, rather than nation-states. I genuinely despise nationalism and would love a political culture rooted in citizenship and civic engagement rather than ethnic or cultural identity. Even so-called "civic nationalists" can't completely escape the taint of at least one of those. Usually both.
I daydream that democracy moves back to the original idea of its classical founders - people would participate directly in face-to-face assemblies at the municipal level to make decisions about local affairs, moving beyond representative democracy toward genuine participatory self-governance. I think representative democracy is cracking up and the only way to save democracy in any meaningful sense is to move back to toward genuine participation. Yeah, theoretically you could do that on a national basis, like a Eurovision vote, endless referenda, but are people really participating, rather than just observing.
Municipalities could form voluntary confederations to coordinate on larger issues while maintaining local autonomy. Economic life would be reorganised around municipal ownership and cooperative enterprises making the local community the fundamental unit of political life while connecting these communities through horizontal networks rather than vertical state structures.
It'll never happen but, hey, it's my ha'penny's worth on how to save the world.
Municipal corporations were a part of the bedrock of Britain's Industrial Revolution.
And in the new millennium, it's notable that outside of the capital (which hoards capital to itself), the strongest growth is in the cities with strongest devolved powers.
Barty's bastardised mashup of centralism and libertarianism has no successful real world analogues.
As a self proclaimed soft Libertarian, although not of the Propertarian bent that Bart seems to espouse I have to say I very much like Doug's idea of bottom up governance. Only those things that cannot be achieved at the lower tier should be elevated to a higher tier.
My only difference is that in this system I still see a place for the Nation State to provide the legal and security framework within which it all happens. That is not something I think can be done effectively or democratically at a Supra national level.
But most decisions being made at a municipal, town or parish level is very much something to be aspired to.
Except UK is full of retired NIMBYs, who are much easier to fight on a national policy level (not that anyone is) than a local one. I think that's a lot of where Bart's coming from.
The ideologically libertarian way to put this is that if you need the government to make rules, they should be objective and generalized. If you need a lot of local knowledge to make decisions properly, you're probably micromanaging too much.
A practical way to see this distinction is if you compare Japan, which has planning rules but they're mostly like "if there is a slope, your building must be at least twice as far from the slope as the height of the slope, and this will be checked by a man with a tape measure", with Britain, which has rules like "you should not be out of character with the general vibe of the place, and a committee of elderly people will tell you whether what you want to build does that or not".
A new build near me. The back garden will have a similar drop! The site slopes badly and the original plan was to use the slope to build 'hobbit houses' part built into the slope. Someone must have pointed out, they'd never sell so they have been removed from the plan.
Locals had been fighting developments here for decades based on the poor layout of the site and the lack of capacity at the sewage treatment plan but this was overruled by the council. Hope those at the bottom of the slope have good drainage as the runoffs here when it rains can be biblical.
That's pretty shite. It's bad enough having landslides in places like Ventnor and Lyme Regis and that place on the Norfolk coast without having houses on too of bings. In fact this sort of thing is going to give the developers in west Edinburgh ideas about the old bings of burnt oil shale blaes west of the airport.
I do wonder how these houses will get insurance ergo mortgages.
Tl:dr -> austerity not hyperinflation led to the rise of the Nazis/far right.
Grrr - I've just spent 15 mins trying to access this by setting up a new limited free views account but no, nothing I try will let me read this article without a paid subscription.
Austerity and the rise of the Nazi party have been linked for years now. Just google for various papers. I'm fairly sure we've even had it on pb.
The Enoch Burke case is interesting. He has now spent more than 500 days in prison for breaking a court order to stay away from a school (where he used to work). Clearly society can not allow people to ignore court orders, nor to allow people to disrupt schools by trespassing on them, but for how many years are the courts prepared to imprison a person for contempt of court?
The Enoch Burke case is interesting. He has now spent more than 500 days in prison for breaking a court order to stay away from a school (where he used to work). Clearly society can not allow people to ignore court orders, nor to allow people to disrupt schools by trespassing on them, but for how many years are the courts prepared to imprison a person for contempt of court?
The contempt of court is as much as a contempt of what has become a new religion. Fanaticism doesnt go away, it just gets transferred.
OT - Clearly Farage expects the Cons to come to him on bended knee begging for the said alliance. No Ref oppo to sitting MPs in return for Ref getting a free run everywhere else for example. Seems unlikely. A much better plan to just take over the Cons - but that seems more likely after the next GE than before it. Farage needs things to happen fast - it won't get better for him and he may end up operating from a much weaker position.
Only Jenrick if he replaced Kemi would even consider a formal Tory and Reform pact pre GE and Cleverly and Stride might not even back Farage to be PM post GE if a hung parliament but abstain
Scenario 1: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (20%) Result - 400 seats to the Reformed Conservative Party. 100 seats to LD - the official opposition. Chance of it happening 60%x75%x20% about 10%?
Scenario 2: Kemi does not step before next election, or if she does, Cleverley is the next leader (50% chance?) Tory leader succeeds in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (zero chance) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 50%?
Scenario 3: Kemi steps down before next general (60% chance?) Jenrick replaces her (75% chance) jenrick does not succeed in negotiating a deal with Farage that leads to a Reformed Conservative Party going into the election (80%) Result - 150-250 seats to Reform, 50-150 seats to Con, 100-250 seats to Lab, 75-100 seats to LD, 10-50 seats to Green. Chance of it happening about 40%?
The chances of Kemi stepping down are dropping rapidly. She's already got the Tories regularly ahead of Labour. If she can start reducing the gap to Reform, she'll be kept on.
In the last 20 polls on the Wikipedia page, the Tories are ahead of Labour on 5, tied on 3, and behind on 12.
How about the last 10?
Last 10, which takes us back to a 19-21 Nov poll, has...
Tories ahead of Labour 2 Tied 2 Labour ahead of Tories 6
Can some colleague of a techie disposition help me, I wonder. I have a Mac desktop, an iPhone and an iPad. I can access pb on the latter, but, alas, no longer on the desktop or the iPhone. Anyone an idea why? The desktop message is that “Safari can’t open the page! The BBC and Guardian pages, for example, open normally. As does Facebook.
Comments and advice, especially the latter, very welcome.
I once found myself unable to access PB on a phone via 4G due to the service provider blocking the site, which I presume related to the site's gambling connections. I had to call them and ask them to enable 'adult content', after which it worked OK.
A modest proposal - if a formal enquiry is begun into a police officer, government official or any other public employee, their retirement is frozen until the end of the enquiry.
Freeze the pension and legislate for financial penalties if the hearing finds culpability post departure would be a better option.
Hmmm.
I was thinking more of impalement combined with crucifixion, while waiting for the outcome of the tribunal.
But your suggestion can go on The List.
Would be a cruel and unusual punishment given the length of time of some public inquiries, many of which the involvement of any particular PC Murdoch is only incidental.
We are talking about specific investigations of individuals.
“PC Savage, you are formally being investigated on suspicion of rape, murder, treason and bringing cake into the office. Your right to retire with pension is suspended until the end of this investigation.”
A modest proposal - if a formal enquiry is begun into a police officer, government official or any other public employee, their retirement is frozen until the end of the enquiry.
Freeze the pension and legislate for financial penalties if the hearing finds culpability post departure would be a better option.
Hmmm.
I was thinking more of impalement combined with crucifixion, while waiting for the outcome of the tribunal.
But your suggestion can go on The List.
Would be a cruel and unusual punishment given the length of time of some public inquiries, many of which the involvement of any particular PC Murdoch is only incidental.
We are talking about specific investigations of individuals.
“PC Savage, you are formally being investigated on suspicion of rape, murder, treason and bringing cake into the office. Your right to retire with pension is suspended until the end of this investigation.”
In finance, resignation did not end an investigation. Banks are under an obligation to report such matters to the regulator.
There is no reason why the same approach cannot be adopted in other sectors.
A modest proposal - if a formal enquiry is begun into a police officer, government official or any other public employee, their retirement is frozen until the end of the enquiry.
Freeze the pension and legislate for financial penalties if the hearing finds culpability post departure would be a better option.
Hmmm.
I was thinking more of impalement combined with crucifixion, while waiting for the outcome of the tribunal.
But your suggestion can go on The List.
Would be a cruel and unusual punishment given the length of time of some public inquiries, many of which the involvement of any particular PC Murdoch is only incidental.
We are talking about specific investigations of individuals.
“PC Savage, you are formally being investigated on suspicion of rape, murder, treason and bringing cake into the office. Your right to retire with pension is suspended until the end of this investigation.”
OK, was thinking in terms of inquiry = Hillsborough sort of thing. Perhaps a better wording is disciplinary investigation? And there are issues about freezing retirement when the situation requires an immediate dismissal. Unless you explicitly keep the option of sacking them separately from retirement?
Comments
When American investors have the US military at their back the outcome might be somewhat different, although as mafia boss fallings-out go, that would be epic.
HSBC snubs George Osborne to name ex-KPMG partner as chairman
Former chancellor misses out as the bank hands the reins to interim chair Brendan Nelson
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/12/03/hsbc-snubs-george-osborne-appoint-ex-kpmg-partner-chairman/
- a jury would might want that punishment inflicted
- They can’t have it
Sentencing is extremely constrained by the guidelines. You can find them online.
You can work out the sentencing yourself, if you like. They are written in fairly simple English and generally don’t require arcane legal knowledge to understand.
They are a part of the justice system that I agree with - public, understandable and quite reasonable, really.
And if you read sentencing remarks for various cases, they are peppered with references to the sentencing guidelines - severity classification, mitigation (if any) etc.
this video is evil and disgusting. Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda.
3:25 PM · Dec 2, 2025
76.2M Views
https://x.com/SabrinaAnnLynn/status/1995876972405420114
Though it's football, so WDIK ?
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/minister-rules-out-two-power-standard-for-royal-navy/
So presumably, by ruling out a return to the Two Power Standard (RN bigger than the next 2 navies), we are on the successive standard of having a fleet 60% bigger than the next naval power.
So 18 aircraft carriers are required.
Locals had been fighting developments here for decades based on the poor layout of the site and the lack of capacity at the sewage treatment plan but this was overruled by the council. Hope those at the bottom of the slope have good drainage as the runoffs here when it rains can be biblical.
The MAGA social media game isn't what it was.
https://www.theargumentmag.com/p/this-is-how-you-get-nazis
Tl:dr -> austerity not hyperinflation led to the rise of the Nazis/far right.
(Sorry for the delay - was finishing several jobs this morning.)
Can some colleague of a techie disposition help me, I wonder.
I have a Mac desktop, an iPhone and an iPad. I can access pb on the latter, but, alas, no longer on the desktop or the iPhone.
Anyone an idea why? The desktop message is that “Safari can’t open the page!
The BBC and Guardian pages, for example, open normally. As does Facebook.
Comments and advice, especially the latter, very welcome.
*at once.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/
Click on this, don’t try to copy and paste.
On the laptop, try to open a “Private Browser” in Safari (from the File menu at the top of the screen), and see if the site opens from there. You’ll need to log in again.
https://x.com/warmonitor3/status/1996205541811683344
🚨NEW POLICY ANNOUNCEMENT🚨
All Evri executives to have their Christmas presents delivered by Evri, to see how they like it.
Love Christmas. Vote Binface.
https://x.com/CountBinface/status/1996174393429643686?s=20
Ah yes, the principle of subsidiarity, as enshrined in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992.
(Teasing hat back off again.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSugSGCC12I
I do wonder how these houses will get insurance ergo mortgages.
The Enoch Burke case is interesting. He has now spent more than 500 days in prison for breaking a court order to stay away from a school (where he used to work). Clearly society can not allow people to ignore court orders, nor to allow people to disrupt schools by trespassing on them, but for how many years are the courts prepared to imprison a person for contempt of court?
Tories ahead of Labour 2
Tied 2
Labour ahead of Tories 6
https://www.instagram.com/stories/rishisunakmp/3779342588726506662/
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HviTEj4VAdc
For those not in the know, it's basically What's My Line? up a ladder.
“PC Savage, you are formally being investigated on suspicion of rape, murder, treason and bringing cake into the office. Your right to retire with pension is suspended until the end of this investigation.”
There is no reason why the same approach cannot be adopted in other sectors.