Correction: This poll appears to have been commissioned by Opal Ltd - the environmentalist Brian Eno is a director of the company. Opal Ltd donated £10,000 to the Green Party in 2022, according to the Electoral Commission. https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Donations/C0561336
The sample size was 452 people.
This was not the first constituency poll. Another was completed by FindOutNow earlier this year.
Correction: This poll appears to have been commissioned by Opal Ltd - the environmentalist Brian Eno is a director of the company. Opal Ltd donated £10,000 to the Green Party in 2022, according to the Electoral Commission. https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Donations/C0561336
The sample size was 452 people.
This was not the first constituency poll. Another was completed by FindOutNow earlier this year.
Correction: This poll appears to have been commissioned by Opal Ltd - the environmentalist Brian Eno is a director of the company. Opal Ltd donated £10,000 to the Green Party in 2022, according to the Electoral Commission. https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Donations/C0561336
The sample size was 452 people.
This was not the first constituency poll. Another was completed by FindOutNow earlier this year.
Correction: This poll appears to have been commissioned by Opal Ltd - the environmentalist Brian Eno is a director of the company. Opal Ltd donated £10,000 to the Green Party in 2022, according to the Electoral Commission. https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Donations/C0561336
The sample size was 452 people.
This was not the first constituency poll. Another was completed by FindOutNow earlier this year.
Correction: This poll appears to have been commissioned by Opal Ltd - the environmentalist Brian Eno is a director of the company. Opal Ltd donated £10,000 to the Green Party in 2022, according to the Electoral Commission. https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Donations/C0561336
The sample size was 452 people.
This was not the first constituency poll. Another was completed by FindOutNow earlier this year.
I wonder if Starmer's calculated if the dick can't tariff me he can feck off if he thinks he's using our Air fields.
Tariffs were he's weapon
Without them he's neutered.
UK has played a blinder on tariffs, might just be about to turn diplomacy on him rather than defence mode.
Trump can retaliate by hitting Starmer where it hurts:
"If you think you can give away British territory, think again."
Chagos is not a Starmer or even UK deal - it’s an India US deal, so there is only 3% danger of it not being ratified by UK before the cut off point 21st May.
The US State Department has signed it off this week. Blocking it now does 97% rest on Donald Trump. And he’s so transactional, use of UK airfields and intelligence in the coming action on Iran Nuclear Programme and out comes Trumps pen - becuase you are correct in your post, only time Trump has used this deal as some sort of leverage over UK, is when Starmer said “No, you can’t have Greenland” and “let me explore further on what must be clear Mission Statement, before I agree use of UK airfields.”
No - Starmer has not said final no to the US , on use of our land to bomb Iran from Sunday evening. It may have been sensible for Starmer not to sign blank cheque without knowing a clearer mission statement on the military action - hence, after Tuesdays Evenings Face Time, two senior cabinet ministers in US this week.
If theres a betting marking on it - place bets on Chagos Deal passes through Parliament AFTER May voting, and BEFORE 21st May. There is Zero problem of enough votes in Commons for it to zip through there - putting LibDem and Labour seats together, what size of rebellion would be needed, and over what issue that unites the rebels?
The 3% chance of it not sorted by 21st May is entirely down to the outside possibility UK can sell our bit of Chagos to the USA - totally impossible outside of Trump Administrations, USA never wanted to buy anything from France or UK at any point in this enterprise, just cuckoo a base - as Trump’s so transactional, he might, quite literally, buy it. But selling it comes with the entanglement of UK security benefits, Chagos Owners Discount Card on US military catalogue sells, how our Nuclear Defence is so woven in with the US and we can’t just go alone on Nuclear Defence with one Real Estate sale inky sign off in White House, can we?
Was anything like this happening before the internet?
Note the ages of the accused: 28 - 73.
Given that the site used by Mr Pelicot was up for 6 years before the French authorities closed it down and that before that trial they found 70,000 men in chat rooms sharing information on how to drug their wives and recruit men to rape them, no-one with any sense could possibly have thought this was unusual. Drugged/sleeping women is a whole porn category.
Quite why so many men want to have sex (I am using that term very loosely) with an inert body baffles me. Surely a w**k is more enjoyable than quasi-necrophilia?
And to answer your question, yes, men have used drugs or alcohol to get women insensible or comatose before raping them. Though probably not on the scale we are now seeing.
Gisele Pelicot has found love again. Remarkable that she is able to trust a man after what happened to her. Her Newsnight interview is well worth watching. Shame must indeed change sides.
Can I, as a man, put my head above the parapet and say that I totally agree with you. For me sex is a two-way experience of enjoyment. Or at least ought to be!
Was anything like this happening before the internet?
Note the ages of the accused: 28 - 73.
Given that the site used by Mr Pelicot was up for 6 years before the French authorities closed it down and that before that trial they found 70,000 men in chat rooms sharing information on how to drug their wives and recruit men to rape them, no-one with any sense could possibly have thought this was unusual. Drugged/sleeping women is a whole porn category.
Quite why so many men want to have sex (I am using that term very loosely) with an inert body baffles me. Surely a w**k is more enjoyable than quasi-necrophilia?
And to answer your question, yes, men have used drugs or alcohol to get women insensible or comatose before raping them. Though probably not on the scale we are now seeing.
Gisele Pelicot has found love again. Remarkable that she is able to trust a man after what happened to her. Her Newsnight interview is well worth watching. Shame must indeed change sides.
Sure drugging and raping is as old as time, but before the internet how did rapists recruit willing fellow rapists?
18-24: Green 40%, Ref 7%, Lab 18%, DK 2O% 25-34: Green 34%, Ref 17%, Lab 18%, DK 15% 35-44: Green 23%, Ref 9%, Lab 17%, DK 37% 45-54: Green 24%, Ref 22%, Lab 15%, DK 36% 55-64: Green 15%, Ref 30%, Lab 17%, DK 37% 65-74: Green 6%, Ref 36%, Lab 17%, DK 37% 75+: Green 4%, Ref 22%, Lab 28%, DK 43%
Makes me wonder if Greens are vulnerable to differential turnout as they are low with 65+ who are most likely to turn up
So Reform win most voters over 50 pretty comfortably, Labour a strong second with pensioners and ahead with over 75s and the Greens under 10% with pensioners in Gorton and Denton.
The Greens do have a big lead with under 35s and are narrowly ahead with 35-54s but on a cold day and night, maybe wet too in February and dark after 5pm who will be most likely to have been at the polling station bright and early or sent a postal vote? Pensioners and over 50s not students, if they bother to get out of bed or their room and not younger middle aged parents at work in the day and with children to deal with in the evening
Correction: This poll appears to have been commissioned by Opal Ltd - the environmentalist Brian Eno is a director of the company. Opal Ltd donated £10,000 to the Green Party in 2022, according to the Electoral Commission. https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Donations/C0561336
The sample size was 452 people.
This was not the first constituency poll. Another was completed by FindOutNow earlier this year.
Not really . The poll finding in terms of headline voting intention isn’t really outlandish although there seem to be a lot of dks and it’s unusual to see more dks in the older categories.
We’d need to see the questions asked and see if there was any push type ones .
Correction: This poll appears to have been commissioned by Opal Ltd - the environmentalist Brian Eno is a director of the company. Opal Ltd donated £10,000 to the Green Party in 2022, according to the Electoral Commission. https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Donations/C0561336
The sample size was 452 people.
This was not the first constituency poll. Another was completed by FindOutNow earlier this year.
Poland has officially left the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines. The country will start producing its own and can mine its eastern border within 48 hours if needed PM Tusk said.
18-24: Green 40%, Ref 7%, Lab 18%, DK 2O% 25-34: Green 34%, Ref 17%, Lab 18%, DK 15% 35-44: Green 23%, Ref 9%, Lab 17%, DK 37% 45-54: Green 24%, Ref 22%, Lab 15%, DK 36% 55-64: Green 15%, Ref 30%, Lab 17%, DK 37% 65-74: Green 6%, Ref 36%, Lab 17%, DK 37% 75+: Green 4%, Ref 22%, Lab 28%, DK 43%
Makes me wonder if Greens are vulnerable to differential turnout as they are low with 65+ who are most likely to turn up
So Reform win most voters over 50 pretty comfortably, Labour a strong second with pensioners and ahead with over 75s and the Greens under 10% with pensioners in Gorton and Denton.
The Greens do have a big lead with under 35s and are narrowly ahead with 35-54s but on a cold day and night, maybe wet too in February and dark after 5pm who will be most likely to have been at the polling station bright and early or sent a postal vote? Pensioners and over 50s not students, if they bother to get out of bed or their room and not younger middle aged parents at work in the day and with children to deal with in the evening
Worth a small bet on Reform?
Weather and ground team as I said earlier
If its wet and cold, don't rule out labour in getting their core vote out
Was anything like this happening before the internet?
Note the ages of the accused: 28 - 73.
Given that the site used by Mr Pelicot was up for 6 years before the French authorities closed it down and that before that trial they found 70,000 men in chat rooms sharing information on how to drug their wives and recruit men to rape them, no-one with any sense could possibly have thought this was unusual. Drugged/sleeping women is a whole porn category.
Quite why so many men want to have sex (I am using that term very loosely) with an inert body baffles me. Surely a w**k is more enjoyable than quasi-necrophilia?
And to answer your question, yes, men have used drugs or alcohol to get women insensible or comatose before raping them. Though probably not on the scale we are now seeing.
Gisele Pelicot has found love again. Remarkable that she is able to trust a man after what happened to her. Her Newsnight interview is well worth watching. Shame must indeed change sides.
Sure drugging and raping is as old as time, but before the internet how did rapists recruit willing fellow rapists?
Was anything like this happening before the internet?
Note the ages of the accused: 28 - 73.
Given that the site used by Mr Pelicot was up for 6 years before the French authorities closed it down and that before that trial they found 70,000 men in chat rooms sharing information on how to drug their wives and recruit men to rape them, no-one with any sense could possibly have thought this was unusual. Drugged/sleeping women is a whole porn category.
Quite why so many men want to have sex (I am using that term very loosely) with an inert body baffles me. Surely a w**k is more enjoyable than quasi-necrophilia?
And to answer your question, yes, men have used drugs or alcohol to get women insensible or comatose before raping them. Though probably not on the scale we are now seeing.
Gisele Pelicot has found love again. Remarkable that she is able to trust a man after what happened to her. Her Newsnight interview is well worth watching. Shame must indeed change sides.
Sure drugging and raping is as old as time, but before the internet how did rapists recruit willing fellow rapists?
Was anything like this happening before the internet?
Note the ages of the accused: 28 - 73.
Given that the site used by Mr Pelicot was up for 6 years before the French authorities closed it down and that before that trial they found 70,000 men in chat rooms sharing information on how to drug their wives and recruit men to rape them, no-one with any sense could possibly have thought this was unusual. Drugged/sleeping women is a whole porn category.
Quite why so many men want to have sex (I am using that term very loosely) with an inert body baffles me. Surely a w**k is more enjoyable than quasi-necrophilia?
And to answer your question, yes, men have used drugs or alcohol to get women insensible or comatose before raping them. Though probably not on the scale we are now seeing.
Gisele Pelicot has found love again. Remarkable that she is able to trust a man after what happened to her. Her Newsnight interview is well worth watching. Shame must indeed change sides.
Sure drugging and raping is as old as time, but before the internet how did rapists recruit willing fellow rapists?
Presumably this is only the tip of the iceburg.
Secret societies that's how.
Consider the way that people who take particular drugs find each. Similar social mechanisms, probably.
Was anything like this happening before the internet?
Note the ages of the accused: 28 - 73.
Given that the site used by Mr Pelicot was up for 6 years before the French authorities closed it down and that before that trial they found 70,000 men in chat rooms sharing information on how to drug their wives and recruit men to rape them, no-one with any sense could possibly have thought this was unusual. Drugged/sleeping women is a whole porn category.
Quite why so many men want to have sex (I am using that term very loosely) with an inert body baffles me. Surely a w**k is more enjoyable than quasi-necrophilia?
And to answer your question, yes, men have used drugs or alcohol to get women insensible or comatose before raping them. Though probably not on the scale we are now seeing.
Gisele Pelicot has found love again. Remarkable that she is able to trust a man after what happened to her. Her Newsnight interview is well worth watching. Shame must indeed change sides.
Sure drugging and raping is as old as time, but before the internet how did rapists recruit willing fellow rapists?
This was inevitable. When are the GOP in Congress going to say enough?
They face mid-terms so --- maybe very soon.
Depends - when do they actually get confirmed in primaries etc? Trump can destroy any of them with a tweet.
More surprising is when ones who are not restanding don't oppose him - they wouldn't need to suddenly start supporting the Dems on everything, but on the one or two issues they cannot stomach they could.
Surely a w**k is more enjoyable than quasi-necrophilia?.
Presumably it's driven by both fear of and hatred of women, otherwise it's pretty inexplicable, outside the much rarer bizarre fetish behaviours that crop up. Clearly the hatred is pretty obvious anyway in performing such crimes, but the fear being behind the desire to commit the crime is probably the key.
Scottish Labour have finalised their list MSP candidates for the Holyrood election.
No surprises as Anas Sarwar tops the Glasgow list. Current MSPs Daniel Johnson and Martin Whitfield are in 3rd and 5th place in the new Edinburgh and East Lothians list (a ridiculous name, Lothian was easier), behind Irshad Ahmad, not as MSP but a former SNP and Alba candidate.
Interestingly for the SNP, Angus Robertson is 4th on the list rankings for the same list area, so realistically he will have to win Edinburgh Central to remain an MSP. He will face a strong challenge to the seat, chiefly from Green MSP Lorna Slater.
The SNP nominations have been tougher in some areas due to a number of ex MPs wanting to throw their hat into the ring for Holyrood, and also some sitting MPs like Stephen Flynn
It is an attempt to say that he still controls the agenda. But he doesn't.
Section 122 allows for the president to impose temporary tariffs in the case of fundamental international payments problems. The United States does not have an international payments problem, fundamental or otherwise, and has not had one since they adopted a floating exchange rate more than five decades ago. Therefore, Section 122 does not give President Trump the legal authority to impose tariffs. This is another guaranteed defeat and yet more chaos in the public finances.
I suspect that the chances of Trump launching military action against Iran have significantly increased.
There's a silver lining to every cloud and if Trump can overthrow the Mullahs then at least some good will have happened from his awful time in office.
Which country's army would you expect to march into Tehran?
I suspect that the chances of Trump launching military action against Iran have significantly increased.
There's a silver lining to every cloud and if Trump can overthrow the Mullahs then at least some good will have happened from his awful time in office.
Which country's army would you expect to march into Tehran?
It is an attempt to say that he still controls the agenda. But he doesn't.
Section 122 allows for the president to impose temporary tariffs in the case of fundamental international payments problems. The United States does not have an international payments problem, fundamental or otherwise, and has not had one since they adopted a floating exchange rate more than five decades ago. Therefore, Section 122 does not give President Trump the legal authority to impose tariffs. This is another guaranteed defeat and yet more chaos in the public finances.
Yeh, but the libs have been owned... so that's the main thing, right?
Fpt. I’ll answer myself as it came awkwardly at the end of a thread
“PICTURE QUIZ
Seen at the National Palace Museum in Taipei, today. The place whereto the Nationalists smuggled much of China’s great treasure in 1949
It’s a pretty, typically Chinese piece of jade ornament. Why is special?”
(You can go back and look at it to see)
Here’s the thing. It is recognisably Chinese. It is obviously a stylised Chinese dragon. It is made of jade. It could have been made yesterday or in 1700 or 1300
In actuality, it was made in 3500BC
THAT is how far Chinese culture stretches back. That’s how ancient and continuous it is. It goes back, unbroken, to before the pyramids.
Imagine looking at an artefact from Western Europe made in 3500BC and thinking “oh yeah, that’s French”’. Or “yup, typically English”. 5,500 years old
No wonder other Asian cultures have an inferiority complex vis a vis China. They are all parvenus. Even the Japanese
Yes. But it’s still a lot like Europe in how China’s history is entangled, like Euro nations are, with influx’s from further afield. The Xiongnu for example were themselves ethically mixed from the eastern Eurasian Steppe like modern Mongolia, Siberia, and bit of northern China, and they would be fighting the Chinese Dynasties. Attila likely had more German in him than I do! and Attila grandson Yuán Shìzǔ who defeated the Song dynasty to set up the Yuan dynasty, remained culturally and ethnically Mongol. That was 100 year dynasty, and the Qing 250 years.
I own a Qing vase I bought off eBay.
As years pass, historians now think there’s a lot more movement and ethnic and cultural mixing up around all the ancient world than they had thought. For example they didn’t think that pagan religions in Iran and Africa and Europe and Scandinavia and British Isles like Ireland were all so linked together - they are only just beginning to all accept that and teach it.
Scottish Labour have finalised their list MSP candidates for the Holyrood election.
No surprises as Anas Sarwar tops the Glasgow list. Current MSPs Daniel Johnson and Martin Whitfield are in 3rd and 5th place in the new Edinburgh and East Lothians list (a ridiculous name, Lothian was easier), behind Irshad Ahmad, not as MSP but a former SNP and Alba candidate.
Interestingly for the SNP, Angus Robertson is 4th on the list rankings for the same list area, so realistically he will have to win Edinburgh Central to remain an MSP. He will face a strong challenge to the seat, chiefly from Green MSP Lorna Slater.
The SNP nominations have been tougher in some areas due to a number of ex MPs wanting to throw their hat into the ring for Holyrood, and also some sitting MPs like Stephen Flynn
Come on Lorna Slater. Defeat the most arrogant person I’ve ever met.
Correction: This poll appears to have been commissioned by Opal Ltd - the environmentalist Brian Eno is a director of the company. Opal Ltd donated £10,000 to the Green Party in 2022, according to the Electoral Commission. https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Donations/C0561336
The sample size was 452 people.
This was not the first constituency poll. Another was completed by FindOutNow earlier this year.
Not really . The poll finding in terms of headline voting intention isn’t really outlandish although there seem to be a lot of dks and it’s unusual to see more dks in the older categories.
We’d need to see the questions asked and see if there was any push type ones .
The questions are included in the dataset. After the demographic questions, its:
Thinking about the Gorton and Denton By-Election on Thursday 26th of February, how likely is it that you would vote?
And which party will you or would vote for? (They are listed as Candidate (party).
If you were aware that the two parties who could win in your constituency were the Green Party and Reform, how would you vote? (and so on for other pairings)
Talking to people about the General Election on 4th July 2024, we have found that a lot of people didn’t manage to vote. How about you? Did you manage to vote in the General Election?
And which party did you vote for?
How much attention do you generally pay to politics? (1-10 scale)
Scottish Labour have finalised their list MSP candidates for the Holyrood election.
No surprises as Anas Sarwar tops the Glasgow list. Current MSPs Daniel Johnson and Martin Whitfield are in 3rd and 5th place in the new Edinburgh and East Lothians list (a ridiculous name, Lothian was easier), behind Irshad Ahmad, not as MSP but a former SNP and Alba candidate.
Interestingly for the SNP, Angus Robertson is 4th on the list rankings for the same list area, so realistically he will have to win Edinburgh Central to remain an MSP. He will face a strong challenge to the seat, chiefly from Green MSP Lorna Slater.
The SNP nominations have been tougher in some areas due to a number of ex MPs wanting to throw their hat into the ring for Holyrood, and also some sitting MPs like Stephen Flynn
Memo to SNP candidates. If you don’t win your constituency seat, you won’t be in Holyrood in May.
Scottish Labour have finalised their list MSP candidates for the Holyrood election.
No surprises as Anas Sarwar tops the Glasgow list. Current MSPs Daniel Johnson and Martin Whitfield are in 3rd and 5th place in the new Edinburgh and East Lothians list (a ridiculous name, Lothian was easier), behind Irshad Ahmad, not as MSP but a former SNP and Alba candidate.
Interestingly for the SNP, Angus Robertson is 4th on the list rankings for the same list area, so realistically he will have to win Edinburgh Central to remain an MSP. He will face a strong challenge to the seat, chiefly from Green MSP Lorna Slater.
The SNP nominations have been tougher in some areas due to a number of ex MPs wanting to throw their hat into the ring for Holyrood, and also some sitting MPs like Stephen Flynn
Come on Lorna Slater. Defeat the most arrogant person I’ve ever met.
I'm not standing in the Holyrood elections this year!
I suspect that the chances of Trump launching military action against Iran have significantly increased.
There's a silver lining to every cloud and if Trump can overthrow the Mullahs then at least some good will have happened from his awful time in office.
Which country's army would you expect to march into Tehran?
Correction: This poll appears to have been commissioned by Opal Ltd - the environmentalist Brian Eno is a director of the company. Opal Ltd donated £10,000 to the Green Party in 2022, according to the Electoral Commission. https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/English/Donations/C0561336
The sample size was 452 people.
This was not the first constituency poll. Another was completed by FindOutNow earlier this year.
Not really . The poll finding in terms of headline voting intention isn’t really outlandish although there seem to be a lot of dks and it’s unusual to see more dks in the older categories.
We’d need to see the questions asked and see if there was any push type ones .
The questions are included in the dataset. After the demographic questions, its:
Thinking about the Gorton and Denton By-Election on Thursday 26th of February, how likely is it that you would vote?
And which party will you or would vote for? (They are listed as Candidate (party).
If you were aware that the two parties who could win in your constituency were the Green Party and Reform, how would you vote? (and so on for other pairings)
Talking to people about the General Election on 4th July 2024, we have found that a lot of people didn’t manage to vote. How about you? Did you manage to vote in the General Election?
And which party did you vote for?
How much attention do you generally pay to politics? (1-10 scale)
I suspect that the chances of Trump launching military action against Iran have significantly increased.
There's a silver lining to every cloud and if Trump can overthrow the Mullahs then at least some good will have happened from his awful time in office.
Which country's army would you expect to march into Tehran?
Was anything like this happening before the internet?
Note the ages of the accused: 28 - 73.
Given that the site used by Mr Pelicot was up for 6 years before the French authorities closed it down and that before that trial they found 70,000 men in chat rooms sharing information on how to drug their wives and recruit men to rape them, no-one with any sense could possibly have thought this was unusual. Drugged/sleeping women is a whole porn category.
Quite why so many men want to have sex (I am using that term very loosely) with an inert body baffles me. Surely a w**k is more enjoyable than quasi-necrophilia?
And to answer your question, yes, men have used drugs or alcohol to get women insensible or comatose before raping them. Though probably not on the scale we are now seeing.
Gisele Pelicot has found love again. Remarkable that she is able to trust a man after what happened to her. Her Newsnight interview is well worth watching. Shame must indeed change sides.
Can I, as a man, put my head above the parapet and say that I totally agree with you. For me sex is a two-way experience of enjoyment. Or at least ought to be!
I can't help feeling that we're discussing this on the wrong bit of the internet, but I concur. There is nothing more arousing than a woman who seems keen to fuck you. All other considerations are secondary. And no matter how well a woman presents herself, indifference kills passion. And I would very much put unconsciousness into that category. I think this is pretty normal, though evidently and depressingly there are some at the far end of the bell curve who feel differently.
The move comes after concerns were raised by the healthcare regulator
In a letter to the team overseeing the study, the regulator said it wanted to discuss setting a minimum age of 14 for those taking part
The trial had been expected to include 226 children who identify as transgender, as part of research into potential side effects. It was due to begin in April
Government: "As the evidence is now being interrogated by clinicians, preparations for the trial have been paused while the MHRA and clinical leaders work through these concerns"
The Cass Review was published in April 2024. How the hell can this only be happening now? How many children, mainly autistic children, have been damaged over the last 22 months? Cass said that there was no evidence of any benefit from these medications. That should have been the end of it.
Scottish Labour have finalised their list MSP candidates for the Holyrood election.
No surprises as Anas Sarwar tops the Glasgow list. Current MSPs Daniel Johnson and Martin Whitfield are in 3rd and 5th place in the new Edinburgh and East Lothians list (a ridiculous name, Lothian was easier), behind Irshad Ahmad, not as MSP but a former SNP and Alba candidate.
Interestingly for the SNP, Angus Robertson is 4th on the list rankings for the same list area, so realistically he will have to win Edinburgh Central to remain an MSP. He will face a strong challenge to the seat, chiefly from Green MSP Lorna Slater.
The SNP nominations have been tougher in some areas due to a number of ex MPs wanting to throw their hat into the ring for Holyrood, and also some sitting MPs like Stephen Flynn
Sarwar’s conscious uncoupling from Starmlab going well. All the Scottish hacks lauding it as an act of staggering genius must feel right fcking idiots. Again.
The Cass Review was published in April 2024. How the hell can this only be happening now? How many children, mainly autistic children, have been damaged over the last 22 months? Cass said that there was no evidence of any benefit from these medications. That should have been the end of it.
The Cass Review was published in April 2024. How the hell can this only be happening now? How many children, mainly autistic children, have been damaged over the last 22 months? Cass said that there was no evidence of any benefit from these medications. That should have been the end of it.
Calm the outrage! The Cass Review recommended a trial be carried out. The trial has not started yet and its start has now been delayed further. Children have not been being given puberty blockers at all over the last 22 months, as I understand it.
Was anything like this happening before the internet?
It was my assumption that Pelicot was not a one-off. The people and place involved were simply too ordinary. Like the grooming gangs we will find that this has been happening everywhere.
If I was a woman it would make me wary of trusting any man. How can you know whether a man would do this to you?
The Cass Review was published in April 2024. How the hell can this only be happening now? How many children, mainly autistic children, have been damaged over the last 22 months? Cass said that there was no evidence of any benefit from these medications. That should have been the end of it.
Didn’t Cass say this week that it was vital that the clinical trial should go ahead? Clarity is a wonderful thing.
The Cass Review was published in April 2024. How the hell can this only be happening now? How many children, mainly autistic children, have been damaged over the last 22 months? Cass said that there was no evidence of any benefit from these medications. That should have been the end of it.
There isn't any good evidence of benefit, nor for that matter of harm. There simply is no quality evidence at all.
The whole point of the study is to look for that evidence of benefit and/or harm.
It is an attempt to say that he still controls the agenda. But he doesn't.
Section 122 allows for the president to impose temporary tariffs in the case of fundamental international payments problems. The United States does not have an international payments problem, fundamental or otherwise, and has not had one since they adopted a floating exchange rate more than five decades ago. Therefore, Section 122 does not give President Trump the legal authority to impose tariffs. This is another guaranteed defeat and yet more chaos in the public finances.
IANAL but Section 122 makes more sense to me as a plausible route than his original one did.
Does the US have a fundamental international payments problem? That's debateable, one could argue that the persistent deficit is a fundamental problem. The law gives 3 grounds to apply and one could argue (1) and (3) apply.
(1) to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,
(2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or
(3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium, ...”
The US balance of payments deficit is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, one could easily argue it is large and serious. There is equally a balance of payments disequilibrium. Some argue that a freely-floating exchange rate means that the balance of payments deficit does not matter any more, but the law was not amended to repeal that so the statute still applies.
Of course the statute only applies for 150 days as a maximum. So it only makes sense to invoke on a temporary basis and spend 150 days getting a permanent solution through Congress - which is how it should have been dealt with in the first place.
For the record I oppose Trump, and tariffs, and think its stupid to impose them. But I can see surely how its legal there, up to the 150 day maximum and only for 150 days.
The very temporary nature of the taxes, with a 150 day limit, is another reason to suspect this route would be legal. It is allowed on a temporary basis, and if Congress were to vote for a permanent solution within the 150 days then that is democracy (even if not good). Completely different to giving the President a blank cheque to permanently issue whatever tariffs he wants whenever he wants it, which is what they were seeking before.
Scottish Labour have finalised their list MSP candidates for the Holyrood election.
No surprises as Anas Sarwar tops the Glasgow list. Current MSPs Daniel Johnson and Martin Whitfield are in 3rd and 5th place in the new Edinburgh and East Lothians list (a ridiculous name, Lothian was easier), behind Irshad Ahmad, not as MSP but a former SNP and Alba candidate.
Interestingly for the SNP, Angus Robertson is 4th on the list rankings for the same list area, so realistically he will have to win Edinburgh Central to remain an MSP. He will face a strong challenge to the seat, chiefly from Green MSP Lorna Slater.
The SNP nominations have been tougher in some areas due to a number of ex MPs wanting to throw their hat into the ring for Holyrood, and also some sitting MPs like Stephen Flynn
Come on Lorna Slater. Defeat the most arrogant person I’ve ever met.
Bizarrely, Robertson is trying to persuade the electorate he is in a straight shoot out with the Tories. It's probably a tactic to try and get all Yes voters on his team.
The new boundaries are further south towards old town, Cowgate and Meadows area, much more favourable to the Greens and will include a big student population. The old boundaries stayed up near old town and the grander houses of the West end.
Pretty much every SNP candidate who doesn't win their seat will be out of Holyrood. They may pick up a list seat in Highlands, but only if they were to lose Inverness and a seat or two to the Lib Dems.
The Cass Review was published in April 2024. How the hell can this only be happening now? How many children, mainly autistic children, have been damaged over the last 22 months? Cass said that there was no evidence of any benefit from these medications. That should have been the end of it.
My understanding was that Cass found there was a lack of evidence and the trial is intended to gather that evidence.
The Cass Review was published in April 2024. How the hell can this only be happening now? How many children, mainly autistic children, have been damaged over the last 22 months? Cass said that there was no evidence of any benefit from these medications. That should have been the end of it.
There isn't any good evidence of benefit, nor for that matter of harm. There simply is no quality evidence at all.
The whole point of the study is to look for that evidence of benefit and/or harm.
It is simply unethical not to do the trial.
There isn’t any randomised controlled trial evidence, but there is some evidence. JAMA published a big cohort study, which found good results for puberty blockers in terms of improved mental health and reduced suicidality. I think that’s important because it justifies why you then need a trial.
I suspect that the chances of Trump launching military action against Iran have significantly increased.
There's a silver lining to every cloud and if Trump can overthrow the Mullahs then at least some good will have happened from his awful time in office.
Which country's army would you expect to march into Tehran?
God’s Army! (Which god tbc)
Ahura Mazda making a long delayed comeback to the Iranian plateau?
The Cass Review was published in April 2024. How the hell can this only be happening now? How many children, mainly autistic children, have been damaged over the last 22 months? Cass said that there was no evidence of any benefit from these medications. That should have been the end of it.
There isn't any good evidence of benefit, nor for that matter of harm. There simply is no quality evidence at all.
The whole point of the study is to look for that evidence of benefit and/or harm.
It is simply unethical not to do the trial.
There isn’t any randomised controlled trial evidence, but there is some evidence. JAMA published a big cohort study, which found good results for puberty blockers in terms of improved mental health and reduced suicidality. I think that’s important because it justifies why you then need a trial.
A cohort study is lower teir evidence, but CASS thought a RCT was needed to decide.
It is an attempt to say that he still controls the agenda. But he doesn't.
Section 122 allows for the president to impose temporary tariffs in the case of fundamental international payments problems. The United States does not have an international payments problem, fundamental or otherwise, and has not had one since they adopted a floating exchange rate more than five decades ago. Therefore, Section 122 does not give President Trump the legal authority to impose tariffs. This is another guaranteed defeat and yet more chaos in the public finances.
IANAL but Section 122 makes more sense to me as a plausible route than his original one did.
Does the US have a fundamental international payments problem? That's debateable, one could argue that the persistent deficit is a fundamental problem. The law gives 3 grounds to apply and one could argue (1) and (3) apply.
(1) to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,
(2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or
(3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium, ...”
The US balance of payments deficit is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, one could easily argue it is large and serious. There is equally a balance of payments disequilibrium. Some argue that a freely-floating exchange rate means that the balance of payments deficit does not matter any more, but the law was not amended to repeal that so the statute still applies.
Of course the statute only applies for 150 days as a maximum. So it only makes sense to invoke on a temporary basis and spend 150 days getting a permanent solution through Congress - which is how it should have been dealt with in the first place.
For the record I oppose Trump, and tariffs, and think its stupid to impose them. But I can see surely how its legal there, up to the 150 day maximum and only for 150 days.
The very temporary nature of the taxes, with a 150 day limit, is another reason to suspect this route would be legal. It is allowed on a temporary basis, and if Congress were to vote for a permanent solution within the 150 days then that is democracy (even if not good). Completely different to giving the President a blank cheque to permanently issue whatever tariffs he wants whenever he wants it, which is what they were seeking before.
It was designed to provide a protection in the world of fixed exchange rates under the Bretton Woods system where countries could find themselves in default or suffering the sort of problems we had when in the ERM. In a world of floating exchange rates this no longer happens so this emergency brake is no longer required. It simply doesn't apply anymore.
Scottish Labour have finalised their list MSP candidates for the Holyrood election.
No surprises as Anas Sarwar tops the Glasgow list. Current MSPs Daniel Johnson and Martin Whitfield are in 3rd and 5th place in the new Edinburgh and East Lothians list (a ridiculous name, Lothian was easier), behind Irshad Ahmad, not as MSP but a former SNP and Alba candidate.
Interestingly for the SNP, Angus Robertson is 4th on the list rankings for the same list area, so realistically he will have to win Edinburgh Central to remain an MSP. He will face a strong challenge to the seat, chiefly from Green MSP Lorna Slater.
The SNP nominations have been tougher in some areas due to a number of ex MPs wanting to throw their hat into the ring for Holyrood, and also some sitting MPs like Stephen Flynn
Sarwar’s conscious uncoupling from Starmlab going well. All the Scottish hacks lauding it as an act of staggering genius must feel right fcking idiots. Again.
It is an attempt to say that he still controls the agenda. But he doesn't.
Section 122 allows for the president to impose temporary tariffs in the case of fundamental international payments problems. The United States does not have an international payments problem, fundamental or otherwise, and has not had one since they adopted a floating exchange rate more than five decades ago. Therefore, Section 122 does not give President Trump the legal authority to impose tariffs. This is another guaranteed defeat and yet more chaos in the public finances.
IANAL but Section 122 makes more sense to me as a plausible route than his original one did.
Does the US have a fundamental international payments problem? That's debateable, one could argue that the persistent deficit is a fundamental problem. The law gives 3 grounds to apply and one could argue (1) and (3) apply.
(1) to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,
(2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or
(3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium, ...”
The US balance of payments deficit is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, one could easily argue it is large and serious. There is equally a balance of payments disequilibrium. Some argue that a freely-floating exchange rate means that the balance of payments deficit does not matter any more, but the law was not amended to repeal that so the statute still applies.
Of course the statute only applies for 150 days as a maximum. So it only makes sense to invoke on a temporary basis and spend 150 days getting a permanent solution through Congress - which is how it should have been dealt with in the first place.
For the record I oppose Trump, and tariffs, and think its stupid to impose them. But I can see surely how its legal there, up to the 150 day maximum and only for 150 days.
The very temporary nature of the taxes, with a 150 day limit, is another reason to suspect this route would be legal. It is allowed on a temporary basis, and if Congress were to vote for a permanent solution within the 150 days then that is democracy (even if not good). Completely different to giving the President a blank cheque to permanently issue whatever tariffs he wants whenever he wants it, which is what they were seeking before.
It was designed to provide a protection in the world of fixed exchange rates under the Bretton Woods system where countries could find themselves in default or suffering the sort of problems we had when in the ERM. In a world of floating exchange rates this no longer happens so this emergency brake is no longer required. It simply doesn't apply anymore.
Trump could do a modern-day Nixon shock and stop the dollar from being freely convertible.
It is an attempt to say that he still controls the agenda. But he doesn't.
Section 122 allows for the president to impose temporary tariffs in the case of fundamental international payments problems. The United States does not have an international payments problem, fundamental or otherwise, and has not had one since they adopted a floating exchange rate more than five decades ago. Therefore, Section 122 does not give President Trump the legal authority to impose tariffs. This is another guaranteed defeat and yet more chaos in the public finances.
IANAL but Section 122 makes more sense to me as a plausible route than his original one did.
Does the US have a fundamental international payments problem? That's debateable, one could argue that the persistent deficit is a fundamental problem. The law gives 3 grounds to apply and one could argue (1) and (3) apply.
(1) to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,
(2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or
(3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium, ...”
The US balance of payments deficit is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, one could easily argue it is large and serious. There is equally a balance of payments disequilibrium. Some argue that a freely-floating exchange rate means that the balance of payments deficit does not matter any more, but the law was not amended to repeal that so the statute still applies.
Of course the statute only applies for 150 days as a maximum. So it only makes sense to invoke on a temporary basis and spend 150 days getting a permanent solution through Congress - which is how it should have been dealt with in the first place.
For the record I oppose Trump, and tariffs, and think its stupid to impose them. But I can see surely how its legal there, up to the 150 day maximum and only for 150 days.
The very temporary nature of the taxes, with a 150 day limit, is another reason to suspect this route would be legal. It is allowed on a temporary basis, and if Congress were to vote for a permanent solution within the 150 days then that is democracy (even if not good). Completely different to giving the President a blank cheque to permanently issue whatever tariffs he wants whenever he wants it, which is what they were seeking before.
It was designed to provide a protection in the world of fixed exchange rates under the Bretton Woods system where countries could find themselves in default or suffering the sort of problems we had when in the ERM. In a world of floating exchange rates this no longer happens so this emergency brake is no longer required. It simply doesn't apply anymore.
But the question is whether at least two of the Conservatives who ruled against Trump today could be persuaded it kinda makes sense.
I can’t believe that the current investigation into Andrew will reveal any significant wrongdoing. He’s too stupid to have understood anything useful enough to give away. I won’t be at all surprised if he’s eventually charged for some sordid sex stuff, but he’s only useful because of his prominent position
It is an attempt to say that he still controls the agenda. But he doesn't.
Section 122 allows for the president to impose temporary tariffs in the case of fundamental international payments problems. The United States does not have an international payments problem, fundamental or otherwise, and has not had one since they adopted a floating exchange rate more than five decades ago. Therefore, Section 122 does not give President Trump the legal authority to impose tariffs. This is another guaranteed defeat and yet more chaos in the public finances.
IANAL but Section 122 makes more sense to me as a plausible route than his original one did.
Does the US have a fundamental international payments problem? That's debateable, one could argue that the persistent deficit is a fundamental problem. The law gives 3 grounds to apply and one could argue (1) and (3) apply.
(1) to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,
(2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or
(3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium, ...”
The US balance of payments deficit is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, one could easily argue it is large and serious. There is equally a balance of payments disequilibrium. Some argue that a freely-floating exchange rate means that the balance of payments deficit does not matter any more, but the law was not amended to repeal that so the statute still applies.
Of course the statute only applies for 150 days as a maximum. So it only makes sense to invoke on a temporary basis and spend 150 days getting a permanent solution through Congress - which is how it should have been dealt with in the first place.
For the record I oppose Trump, and tariffs, and think its stupid to impose them. But I can see surely how its legal there, up to the 150 day maximum and only for 150 days.
The very temporary nature of the taxes, with a 150 day limit, is another reason to suspect this route would be legal. It is allowed on a temporary basis, and if Congress were to vote for a permanent solution within the 150 days then that is democracy (even if not good). Completely different to giving the President a blank cheque to permanently issue whatever tariffs he wants whenever he wants it, which is what they were seeking before.
It was designed to provide a protection in the world of fixed exchange rates under the Bretton Woods system where countries could find themselves in default or suffering the sort of problems we had when in the ERM. In a world of floating exchange rates this no longer happens so this emergency brake is no longer required. It simply doesn't apply anymore.
The statute is still on the books, what it was designed for is moot, it is the law and has not been repealed.
Does the US have a "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficit"? Very arguably, yes. If so, the criterion has been met - the law does not specify anything regarding Bretton Woods.
Should it have been repealed post-Bretton Woods? Also arguably yes. However it has not been, it is still law.
If it gets used in this way, it would hardly be the first time a government has used a statute not in the way it was intended for when designed, which is why we should always be wary of giving governments powers to use.
It comes with clear limitations though, most obviously the 150 day limit. Which I doubt Trump et al want to adhere to, so either they ignore that element (and break the law and then it is patently illegal), or within 150 days they get a permanent replacement through Congress, in which case SCOTUS's objection that Congress should decide has been met.
I can’t believe that the current investigation into Andrew will reveal any significant wrongdoing. He’s too stupid to have understood anything useful enough to give away. I won’t be at all surprised if he’s eventually charged for some sordid sex stuff, but he’s only useful because of his prominent position
Just seen Royal Mail trying to cut Sat deliveries for non 1st class post. Meanwhile my postman confirmed there were no deliveries on my round on one day this week Horsham has 18 vacancies that cannot be filled and if a round doesn't happen its cheaper to.pay the fine than deliver the post.
Just seen Royal Mail trying to cut Sat deliveries for non 1st class post. Meanwhile my postman confirmed there were no deliveries on my round on one day this week Horsham has 18 vacancies that cannot be filled and if a round doesn't happen its cheaper to.pay the fine than deliver the post.
The Cass Review was published in April 2024. How the hell can this only be happening now? How many children, mainly autistic children, have been damaged over the last 22 months? Cass said that there was no evidence of any benefit from these medications. That should have been the end of it.
The Cass Report specified that they should be prescribed only as part of a trial. Baroness Cass recommends that the trial proceed to provide an evidence base for rejecting them. Puberty blockers were banned by the Conservative health minister a few weeks (?) after Cass, and that ban was made indefinite by the present Labour health minister. In both cases there is a trial exception and iirc the "indefinite" ban was intended to be until the trial reported.
Scottish Labour have finalised their list MSP candidates for the Holyrood election.
No surprises as Anas Sarwar tops the Glasgow list. Current MSPs Daniel Johnson and Martin Whitfield are in 3rd and 5th place in the new Edinburgh and East Lothians list (a ridiculous name, Lothian was easier), behind Irshad Ahmad, not as MSP but a former SNP and Alba candidate.
Interestingly for the SNP, Angus Robertson is 4th on the list rankings for the same list area, so realistically he will have to win Edinburgh Central to remain an MSP. He will face a strong challenge to the seat, chiefly from Green MSP Lorna Slater.
The SNP nominations have been tougher in some areas due to a number of ex MPs wanting to throw their hat into the ring for Holyrood, and also some sitting MPs like Stephen Flynn
Sarwar’s conscious uncoupling from Starmlab going well. All the Scottish hacks lauding it as an act of staggering genius must feel right fcking idiots. Again.
Both Starmer and Reform are a millstone round Slab's neck. The higher Reform poll, the fewer Slab MSPs we can expect back in Holyrood.
Less than 11 weeks until 7th May, the chances of Slab mopping up Reform waverers and beating them to second place is diminishing each day
Poor old Anas. A year and a half ago he thought he would be the next First Minister. Nine months ago he thought he would at least be the leader of the second largest party,with the first question at FM’s Questions. Now he knows he will continue to be an also ran.
Scottish Labour have finalised their list MSP candidates for the Holyrood election.
No surprises as Anas Sarwar tops the Glasgow list. Current MSPs Daniel Johnson and Martin Whitfield are in 3rd and 5th place in the new Edinburgh and East Lothians list (a ridiculous name, Lothian was easier), behind Irshad Ahmad, not as MSP but a former SNP and Alba candidate.
Interestingly for the SNP, Angus Robertson is 4th on the list rankings for the same list area, so realistically he will have to win Edinburgh Central to remain an MSP. He will face a strong challenge to the seat, chiefly from Green MSP Lorna Slater.
The SNP nominations have been tougher in some areas due to a number of ex MPs wanting to throw their hat into the ring for Holyrood, and also some sitting MPs like Stephen Flynn
Sarwar’s conscious uncoupling from Starmlab going well. All the Scottish hacks lauding it as an act of staggering genius must feel right fcking idiots. Again.
Both Starmer and Reform are a millstone round Slab's neck. The higher Reform poll, the fewer Slab MSPs we can expect back in Holyrood.
Less than 11 weeks until 7th May, the chances of Slab mopping up Reform waverers and beating them to second place is diminishing each day
Poor old Anas. A year and a half ago he thought he would be the next First Minister. Nine months ago he thought he would at least be the leader of the second largest party,with the first question at FM’s Questions. Now he knows he will continue to be an also ran.
Was anything like this happening before the internet?
Note the ages of the accused: 28 - 73.
Given that the site used by Mr Pelicot was up for 6 years before the French authorities closed it down and that before that trial they found 70,000 men in chat rooms sharing information on how to drug their wives and recruit men to rape them, no-one with any sense could possibly have thought this was unusual. Drugged/sleeping women is a whole porn category.
Quite why so many men want to have sex (I am using that term very loosely) with an inert body baffles me. Surely a w**k is more enjoyable than quasi-necrophilia?
And to answer your question, yes, men have used drugs or alcohol to get women insensible or comatose before raping them. Though probably not on the scale we are now seeing.
Gisele Pelicot has found love again. Remarkable that she is able to trust a man after what happened to her. Her Newsnight interview is well worth watching. Shame must indeed change sides.
Can I, as a man, put my head above the parapet and say that I totally agree with you. For me sex is a two-way experience of enjoyment. Or at least ought to be!
Agreed. But more basic than that.
If consent is not or cannot be given then it is rape. Plain and simple. I can conceive of no situations or exceptions where this is not the case.
Was anything like this happening before the internet?
Note the ages of the accused: 28 - 73.
Given that the site used by Mr Pelicot was up for 6 years before the French authorities closed it down and that before that trial they found 70,000 men in chat rooms sharing information on how to drug their wives and recruit men to rape them, no-one with any sense could possibly have thought this was unusual. Drugged/sleeping women is a whole porn category.
Quite why so many men want to have sex (I am using that term very loosely) with an inert body baffles me. Surely a w**k is more enjoyable than quasi-necrophilia?
And to answer your question, yes, men have used drugs or alcohol to get women insensible or comatose before raping them. Though probably not on the scale we are now seeing.
Gisele Pelicot has found love again. Remarkable that she is able to trust a man after what happened to her. Her Newsnight interview is well worth watching. Shame must indeed change sides.
Can I, as a man, put my head above the parapet and say that I totally agree with you. For me sex is a two-way experience of enjoyment. Or at least ought to be!
Agreed. But more basic than that.
If consent is not or cannot be given then it is rape. Plain and simple. I can conceive of no situations or exceptions where this is not the case.
Just like tea. Don't make them drink it.
And unconscious people don't want tea and can't answer the question, because they're unconscious.
"Later, of Justice Gorsuch and Barrett, he said: “I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, the two of them.”
The comments were revealing about how Mr. Trump views Supreme Court justices, not as independent legal thinkers appointed for their expertise or as a constitutional check on his administration, but as appointees who should be loyal to him."
NY Times live blog
Bringing their families into this discussion. Literally nothing to do with them. Just plain nasty.
He is a the most corrupt President in history, and likely a child rapist.
Trump says he will impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122
* Section 122 has never been used before * The tariffs are capped at 15% * Can only be imposed for up to 150 days. Congressional approval is required to keep the duties in place for longer.
Trump says he will impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122
* Section 122 has never been used before * The tariffs are capped at 15% * Can only be imposed for up to 150 days. Congressional approval is required to keep the duties in place for longer.
So no change to the UK's 10% tariff anyway
Are you sure the 10% isn't in top of the 10% ?
It is, Trump if trying to charge 10% on top of other tariffs.
Seems to be rather a lot of undecideds in this new poll, certainly more than the FON poll, which enables the Greens to lead. Though yes the more the divide between Labour and Green on the left the easier for Reform to win
Undecided between the sofa and the polling station.
The Cass Review was published in April 2024. How the hell can this only be happening now? How many children, mainly autistic children, have been damaged over the last 22 months? Cass said that there was no evidence of any benefit from these medications. That should have been the end of it.
There isn't any good evidence of benefit, nor for that matter of harm. There simply is no quality evidence at all.
The whole point of the study is to look for that evidence of benefit and/or harm.
It is simply unethical not to do the trial.
What about the evidence from the children who were treated by GIDS at the Tavistock? Shouldn't that be available? I seem to recall that some of the adult clinics refused to co-operate with Cass. Why?
And isn't there evidence from other countries?
For my part I do not understand how a troubled child aged 10 or even older could possibly give informed consent to a process that leads to loss of fertility and possibly also sexual function. Can a parent really give that consent on their behalf and shouldn't their motives be interrogated eg are they doing so because of homophobia, for instance? That concern was raised by some of the Tavistock therapists. Maybe all this has been addressed by the ethics committee. But the greatest care should be taken precisely because of the irreversible nature of the interventions. Once puberty is blocked at the age it is meant to happen, there is no second chance even if the child changes their mind.
Was anything like this happening before the internet?
Note the ages of the accused: 28 - 73.
Given that the site used by Mr Pelicot was up for 6 years before the French authorities closed it down and that before that trial they found 70,000 men in chat rooms sharing information on how to drug their wives and recruit men to rape them, no-one with any sense could possibly have thought this was unusual. Drugged/sleeping women is a whole porn category.
Quite why so many men want to have sex (I am using that term very loosely) with an inert body baffles me. Surely a w**k is more enjoyable than quasi-necrophilia?
And to answer your question, yes, men have used drugs or alcohol to get women insensible or comatose before raping them. Though probably not on the scale we are now seeing.
Gisele Pelicot has found love again. Remarkable that she is able to trust a man after what happened to her. Her Newsnight interview is well worth watching. Shame must indeed change sides.
Can I, as a man, put my head above the parapet and say that I totally agree with you. For me sex is a two-way experience of enjoyment. Or at least ought to be!
Agreed. But more basic than that.
If consent is not or cannot be given then it is rape. Plain and simple. I can conceive of no situations or exceptions where this is not the case.
Just like tea. Don't make them drink it.
And unconscious people don't want tea and can't answer the question, because they're unconscious.
Trump says he will impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122
* Section 122 has never been used before * The tariffs are capped at 15% * Can only be imposed for up to 150 days. Congressional approval is required to keep the duties in place for longer.
So no change to the UK's 10% tariff anyway
Are you sure the 10% isn't in top of the 10% ?
It is, Trump if trying to charge 10% on top of other tariffs.
Anyway I'm off to bed. I had a nasty fall earlier when collecting wood and have really hurt my ribs. I'm hoping it's only bruising and nothing worse but for the moment it hurts if I move and breathe. This is not the best weekend for Husband to disappear to an archaeology conference.
It is an attempt to say that he still controls the agenda. But he doesn't.
Section 122 allows for the president to impose temporary tariffs in the case of fundamental international payments problems. The United States does not have an international payments problem, fundamental or otherwise, and has not had one since they adopted a floating exchange rate more than five decades ago. Therefore, Section 122 does not give President Trump the legal authority to impose tariffs. This is another guaranteed defeat and yet more chaos in the public finances.
IANAL but Section 122 makes more sense to me as a plausible route than his original one did.
Does the US have a fundamental international payments problem? That's debateable, one could argue that the persistent deficit is a fundamental problem. The law gives 3 grounds to apply and one could argue (1) and (3) apply.
(1) to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,
(2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or
(3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium, ...”
The US balance of payments deficit is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, one could easily argue it is large and serious. There is equally a balance of payments disequilibrium. Some argue that a freely-floating exchange rate means that the balance of payments deficit does not matter any more, but the law was not amended to repeal that so the statute still applies.
Of course the statute only applies for 150 days as a maximum. So it only makes sense to invoke on a temporary basis and spend 150 days getting a permanent solution through Congress - which is how it should have been dealt with in the first place.
For the record I oppose Trump, and tariffs, and think its stupid to impose them. But I can see surely how its legal there, up to the 150 day maximum and only for 150 days.
The very temporary nature of the taxes, with a 150 day limit, is another reason to suspect this route would be legal. It is allowed on a temporary basis, and if Congress were to vote for a permanent solution within the 150 days then that is democracy (even if not good). Completely different to giving the President a blank cheque to permanently issue whatever tariffs he wants whenever he wants it, which is what they were seeking before.
It is worth remembering that Balance of Payments must balance.
We tend to think of investment capital flows as being 'wagged' by trade. So, a country runs a balance of payments deficit, so must therefore import capital (by selling assets / bonds / etc) abroad.
But it works in both ways: if there are persistent net investments into a country by foreigners, it will tend to cause a trade deficit.
Anyway I'm off to bed. I had a nasty fall earlier when collecting wood and have really hurt my ribs. I'm hoping it's only bruising and nothing worse but for the moment it hurts if I move and breathe. This is not the best weekend for Husband to disappear to an archaeology conference.
Take care Cyclefree. Is there anyone else around to help ?
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Eno
Clearly keen for Another Green World.
Suddenly of possible interest:
"President Trump Cannot Legally Impose Tariffs Using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974"
https://bsky.app/profile/simonlester.com/post/3mfcrwh4jjc2c
The Conservative Party slowing it down in the Lords is now dead.
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/uk-ratification-chagos-archipelago-treaty-will-not-violate-international-law
The US State Department has signed it off this week. Blocking it now does 97% rest on Donald Trump. And he’s so transactional, use of UK airfields and intelligence in the coming action on Iran Nuclear Programme and out comes Trumps pen - becuase you are correct in your post, only time Trump has used this deal as some sort of leverage over UK, is when Starmer said “No, you can’t have Greenland” and “let me explore further on what must be clear Mission Statement, before I agree use of UK airfields.”
No - Starmer has not said final no to the US , on use of our land to bomb Iran from Sunday evening. It may have been sensible for Starmer not to sign blank cheque without knowing a clearer mission statement on the military action - hence, after Tuesdays Evenings Face Time, two senior cabinet ministers in US this week.
If theres a betting marking on it - place bets on Chagos Deal passes through Parliament AFTER May voting, and BEFORE 21st May. There is Zero problem of enough votes in Commons for it to zip through there - putting LibDem and Labour seats together, what size of rebellion would be needed, and over what issue that unites the rebels?
The 3% chance of it not sorted by 21st May is entirely down to the outside possibility UK can sell our bit of Chagos to the USA - totally impossible outside of Trump Administrations, USA never wanted to buy anything from France or UK at any point in this enterprise, just cuckoo a base - as Trump’s so transactional, he might, quite literally, buy it. But selling it comes with the entanglement of UK security benefits, Chagos Owners Discount Card on US military catalogue sells, how our Nuclear Defence is so woven in with the US and we can’t just go alone on Nuclear Defence with one Real Estate sale inky sign off in White House, can we?
Presumably this is only the tip of the iceburg.
We’d need to see the questions asked and see if there was any push type ones .
Scott Lincicome
@scottlincicome
The US government owes US companies ~$175 BILLION in illegally-collected taxes.
Let's get to work.
https://x.com/scottlincicome/status/2024863194947215798
Poland has officially left the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel mines. The country will start producing its own and can mine its eastern border within 48 hours if needed PM Tusk said.
If its wet and cold, don't rule out labour in getting their core vote out
It’s just that we
1) made some behaviours illegal*
2) made it possible to report and get convictions for 1
*in Roman times, for example..
https://x.com/boldyboy1975/status/2024933050509860973?s=61
Think on especially on fish and chip Friday
He fellated Trump , swallowed and then put on his gimp suit !
More surprising is when ones who are not restanding don't oppose him - they wouldn't need to suddenly start supporting the Dems on everything, but on the one or two issues they cannot stomach they could.
@JustinWolfers
What problem is Trump's new global 10% tariff meant to solve?
If it's about leverage, ask: How much leverage do you get from a tariff that disappears in 150 days?
If it's onshoring: Who builds new factories based on tariff that disappear before the factory is built?
It's a tax. That's all it is.
https://x.com/JustinWolfers/status/2024937226711216371
Scottish Labour have finalised their list MSP candidates for the Holyrood election.
No surprises as Anas Sarwar tops the Glasgow list. Current MSPs Daniel Johnson and Martin Whitfield are in 3rd and 5th place in the new Edinburgh and East Lothians list (a ridiculous name, Lothian was easier), behind Irshad Ahmad, not as MSP but a former SNP and Alba candidate.
Interestingly for the SNP, Angus Robertson is 4th on the list rankings for the same list area, so realistically he will have to win Edinburgh Central to remain an MSP. He will face a strong challenge to the seat, chiefly from Green MSP Lorna Slater.
The SNP nominations have been tougher in some areas due to a number of ex MPs wanting to throw their hat into the ring for Holyrood, and also some sitting MPs like Stephen Flynn
Section 122 allows for the president to impose temporary tariffs in the case of fundamental international payments problems. The United States does not have an international payments problem, fundamental or otherwise, and has not had one since they adopted a floating exchange rate more than five decades ago. Therefore, Section 122 does not give President Trump the legal authority to impose tariffs. This is another guaranteed defeat and yet more chaos in the public finances.
(Which god tbc)
I own a Qing vase I bought off eBay.
As years pass, historians now think there’s a lot more movement and ethnic and cultural mixing up around all the ancient world than they had thought. For example they didn’t think that pagan religions in Iran and Africa and Europe and Scandinavia and British Isles like Ireland were all so linked together - they are only just beginning to all accept that and teach it.
Thinking about the Gorton and Denton By-Election on Thursday 26th of February, how likely is it that you would vote?
And which party will you or would vote for? (They are listed as Candidate (party).
If you were aware that the two parties who could win in your constituency were the Green Party and Reform, how would you vote? (and so on for other pairings)
Talking to people about the General Election on 4th July 2024, we have found that a lot of people didn’t manage to vote. How about you? Did you manage to vote in the General Election?
And which party did you vote for?
How much attention do you generally pay to politics? (1-10 scale)
‘ 🚨 NEW: The Department of Health says the clinical trial of giving puberty blockers to children has been paused’
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2024936941850931628?s=61
In a letter to the team overseeing the study, the regulator said it wanted to discuss setting a minimum age of 14 for those taking part
The trial had been expected to include 226 children who identify as transgender, as part of research into potential side effects. It was due to begin in April
Government: "As the evidence is now being interrogated by clinicians, preparations for the trial have been paused while the MHRA and clinical leaders work through these concerns"
All the Scottish hacks lauding it as an act of staggering genius must feel right fcking idiots. Again.
https://x.com/scotnational/status/2024892377865826529?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
One to LD, one to PC and this beauty in Leicester to Greens on a 17.9% swing.
Stoneygate (Leicester) Council By-Election Result:
🌍 GRN: 30.4% (+22.9)
🌹 LAB: 27.7% (-12.8)
🏘️ OL: 16.2% (New)
🙋 Ind: 11.5% (New)
🌳 CON: 8.3% (-15.3)
➡️ RFM: 2.7% (New)
🔶 LDM: 1.6% (-5.9)
🙋 Ind: 1.6% (New)
No Ind (-21.0) as previous.
Green GAIN from Labour.
Changes w/ 2023.
If I was a woman it would make me wary of trusting any man. How can you know whether a man would do this to you?
It's very bleak.
Clarity is a wonderful thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0k1vkmxgd6o
The whole point of the study is to look for that evidence of benefit and/or harm.
It is simply unethical not to do the trial.
Does the US have a fundamental international payments problem? That's debateable, one could argue that the persistent deficit is a fundamental problem. The law gives 3 grounds to apply and one could argue (1) and (3) apply.
(1) to deal with large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,
(2) to prevent an imminent and significant depreciation of the dollar in foreign exchange markets, or
(3) to cooperate with other countries in correcting an international balance-of-payments disequilibrium, ...”
The US balance of payments deficit is in the hundreds of billions of dollars, one could easily argue it is large and serious. There is equally a balance of payments disequilibrium. Some argue that a freely-floating exchange rate means that the balance of payments deficit does not matter any more, but the law was not amended to repeal that so the statute still applies.
Of course the statute only applies for 150 days as a maximum. So it only makes sense to invoke on a temporary basis and spend 150 days getting a permanent solution through Congress - which is how it should have been dealt with in the first place.
For the record I oppose Trump, and tariffs, and think its stupid to impose them. But I can see surely how its legal there, up to the 150 day maximum and only for 150 days.
The very temporary nature of the taxes, with a 150 day limit, is another reason to suspect this route would be legal. It is allowed on a temporary basis, and if Congress were to vote for a permanent solution within the 150 days then that is democracy (even if not good). Completely different to giving the President a blank cheque to permanently issue whatever tariffs he wants whenever he wants it, which is what they were seeking before.
I have no personal experience of @Cyclefree's alternative but I'm confident a walk would be preferable.
The new boundaries are further south towards old town, Cowgate and Meadows area, much more favourable to the Greens and will include a big student population. The old boundaries stayed up near old town and the grander houses of the West end.
Pretty much every SNP candidate who doesn't win their seat will be out of Holyrood. They may pick up a list seat in Highlands, but only if they were to lose Inverness and a seat or two to the Lib Dems.
Less than 11 weeks until 7th May, the chances of Slab mopping up Reform waverers and beating them to second place is diminishing each day
Does the US have a "large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficit"? Very arguably, yes. If so, the criterion has been met - the law does not specify anything regarding Bretton Woods.
Should it have been repealed post-Bretton Woods? Also arguably yes. However it has not been, it is still law.
If it gets used in this way, it would hardly be the first time a government has used a statute not in the way it was intended for when designed, which is why we should always be wary of giving governments powers to use.
It comes with clear limitations though, most obviously the 150 day limit. Which I doubt Trump et al want to adhere to, so either they ignore that element (and break the law and then it is patently illegal), or within 150 days they get a permanent replacement through Congress, in which case SCOTUS's objection that Congress should decide has been met.
Meanwhile my postman confirmed there were no deliveries on my round on one day this week Horsham has 18 vacancies that cannot be filled and if a round doesn't happen its cheaper to.pay the fine than deliver the post.
Something is v wrong if this is true
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c36x8k2612ko
Maybe Blanche can shed more light on things
If consent is not or cannot be given then it is rape. Plain and simple. I can conceive of no situations or exceptions where this is not the case.
And unconscious people don't want tea and can't answer the question, because they're unconscious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
Why would it be a surprise that he's 'nasty' ?
Pritzker demands a $1,700 refund per family for the people of Illinois after Trump's tariffs were ruled unconstitutional
https://x.com/samstein/status/2024948508650811680?s=20
And isn't there evidence from other countries?
For my part I do not understand how a troubled child aged 10 or even older could possibly give informed consent to a process that leads to loss of fertility and possibly also sexual function. Can a parent really give that consent on their behalf and shouldn't their motives be interrogated eg are they doing so because of homophobia, for instance? That concern was raised by some of the Tavistock therapists. Maybe all this has been addressed by the ethics committee. But the greatest care should be taken precisely because of the irreversible nature of the interventions. Once puberty is blocked at the age it is meant to happen, there is no second chance even if the child changes their mind.
We tend to think of investment capital flows as being 'wagged' by trade. So, a country runs a balance of payments deficit, so must therefore import capital (by selling assets / bonds / etc) abroad.
But it works in both ways: if there are persistent net investments into a country by foreigners, it will tend to cause a trade deficit.
Is there anyone else around to help ?