Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There has been a low intensity war between Iran, the USA, and Israel, and their proxies, since 1979. For either side to find a casus belli is not difficult.
The situation is rather like that of the UK vs Libya from the 1970's through to 2012.
Public International Law has its uses, in terms of the enforcement of treaties, and setting standards for ius in bello, but as a means of determining ius ad bellum, it does not count for much.
But the more that people think it does the better.
Clearly this Iran conflict has boosted Starmer somewhat, Labour is up in the polls a bit and Reform stagnating and the Tories and LDs generally slightly down and any Green surge contained and a plurality of voters thinking he is opposing them for moral reasons will boost his position. Starmer's position of allowing UK bases to be used for defensive operations only is also the position of the median Labour and UK voter overall based on the More in Common poll.
By contrast I don't think Farage's support for the War damaged him at all, given the median Reform voter wants the UK to allow its bases to be used for both defensive and offensive operations by the US and most Reform voters agree with Trump that Starmer is 'no Winston Churchill' if anything Farage showing reservations about UK involvement in the conflict is moving him away from his more hawklike voters. Although he can also say only a quarter of Reform voters want the UK RAF to take part in the strikes themselves.
The Greens are the only party where most of its voters say the UK should take no part in the conflict at all and not allow its bases to be used, so Polanski's position matches his voters there. The median LD and Tory voter though says the UK should allow its bases to be used for defensive operations only so Starmer is actually closer to LD and Tory voters than Davey's outright opposition to UK involvement in the conflict and Kemi's backing using the RAF to strike Iranian missile launchers is. So Starmer's poll bounce may continue if he can squeeze the LD and Conservative vote a bit further
You are a conservative and not once do you mention Kemi's poll bounce taking her ahead of all the four party leaders
I wonder why ?
Where is this poll bounce you speak of? The More in Common poll posted earlier in the thread has the Tories third on 19%, 3% behind Labour and 11% behind Reform
I simply cannot understand why you prevaricate
The approval bounce to best ratings of all the leaders is a prerequisite of any improvement in the conservative brand which your hero Johnson trashed
Johnson even when he resigned left the Conservatives with a higher voteshare in the polls then when he took over in summer 2019 and a voteshare over 10% higher than the current Conservative voteshare
One word
Boriswave
Who reduced that? Cleverly as Home Secretary under Rishi
What happened to the idea his being arrested would stop the clock on releases due to "not commenting on an ongoing investigation"?
Another opportunity for the Tories to salivate and masturbate over a topic that 99 98% of the population have absolutely no interest in.
Focusing on a verb here, a noun there and days of pointless twaddle.
He's a wrongun, he's gone, the CPS. Police and Judiciary possibly, will decide his fate.
Mandelson is one of the political topics that the non-political raise in conversation.
The news story about the release will kick that back on again.
Indeed it is. Its one man who encapsulates the stench and rot at the heart of Labour. Their kryptonite.
I do not understand why Darren Jones is giving a statement immediately after PMQs [as Starmer scurries away] and then they will be released
They should have been released before the statement and then the government response
What released to the media before the Parliamentary statement? Surely that undermines the supremacy of Parliament? But seriously, they all play these games. The Government want it out after PMQs - so they are going to stick to protocol: “you asked for this via humble address and here it is.” Of course all Governments play these games and arrange the order paper and realease of documents to serve their interests - and all oppositions clutch pearls when they do this. Same as it ever was.
He's fully explained that on TV this morning as you well know.
It's standard protocol to follow PMQ
Besides any serious person would want time to look at what's in the reports
Now we all know Kemi reads ore prepared researcher notes and jokes, so even she must be relieved.
There will be plenty of time for anyone who wants to waste time on this irrelevence to do so in the coming days with Urgent Questions or requests if they wish to.
I suspect the vast majority of the general public outside f the Westminster bubble who have already made their mind up on Mandelson would prefer the opposition parties to put their time to much better use.
Why are the twatty Bishops still in the HoL? Disestablish, now
Absolutely not, we have an established church and the Bishops should be there, they are less than 5% of the fully appointed unelected Lords anyway though a few more leaders from other faiths should be appointed as well. We should have kept the hereditaries too.
Disestablishment also removes the automatic right to a wedding or funeral in your local C of E Parish church
Disagree with your final statement. The Church in Wales is disestablished and we can still do the things you mention.
The Church in Wales is tiny and now significantly smaller than the Roman Catholic church in Wales. Of course it is now possible for Church in Wales vicars to refuse weddings or funerals to local Parishioners unless they attend church each week which they couldn't before when they were established.
Certainly I would expect conservative evangelical Vicars to start refusing local people weddings, funerals or baptisms in their church unless they attended each week if the C of E was disestablished. You also can't get married in the RC church unless a baptised RC who is expected to attend church regularly in the run up to marriage
I stand to be corrected, but at one time wasn't it essential for a marriage to be in an Established Church, or at least by a 'qualified' cleric? See the Fleet parsons of the 18th C.
The UK ending almost all jury trials is a genuine "moment". I feel a "Please pinch me - I want to wake up now." sensation. It's like we abolished the monarchy - & then some. We're led by people who have no interest in or respect for the assembled wisdom of centuries.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?
Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.
An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.
Whatever the fate of polls and petrol prices, it was a wonderful opening day to the Cheltenham Festival yesterday and for a change I managed to find a couple of winners - obviously, @MoonRabbit found all seven, I imagine, or that's what I was led to believe.
Day Two beckons and another stellar card and if you want to read my innermost cerebral musings, I post a more detailed summation of the main races on racecafe.co.nz
I won't post all that here cos it's boring for those strange people who aren't horse racing fans and cut to the chase (or hurdle or indeed bumper) with today's selections:
Turners Novices Hurdle: BALLYFAD
Brown Advisory Chase: THE BIG WESTERNER (win), OSCAR'S BROTHER (each way)
Queen Mother Champion Chase: QUILIXIOS (each way)
Champion Bumper: KEEP HIM COMPANY
Mine for today, yesterday was terrible ,
13:20 No Drama This End 14:00 Kaid D'Authie 14:40 Storm Heart
Wide open racing. Even the cross country has more genuine contenders this time.
I’ll post mine again, as we are all on different runners!
13:20 - Taurus Bay {long shot rabbit from the hat} 14:00 - Wendigo 14:40 - The Yellow Clay 15:20 - Stumptown 16:00 - L'Eau Du Sud 16:40 - Be Aware 17:20 - Love Sign d'Aunou
It’s a worry to me you’ve gone for something different in the 2M flat race with uphill finish Stodge! I poured over it for hours and never seriously considered keep him company. I was thinking this is endurance test for the poor newbies.
PS I only had two winners not 7 yesterday. Only in my dreams I had 7!
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?
Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.
An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.
Iran has said it wants to wipe out Israel, it is its express foreign policy objective to do so, and has been developing a nuclear weapon in tandem:
Call me picky, but if I were Israel I would be thinking more of the risks to my own survival - particularly given the history of sudden attacks on it in the region - rather your sixth-form debating club semantics.
Why are the twatty Bishops still in the HoL? Disestablish, now
Absolutely not, we have an established church and the Bishops should be there, they are less than 5% of the fully appointed unelected Lords anyway though a few more leaders from other faiths should be appointed as well. We should have kept the hereditaries too.
Disestablishment also removes the automatic right to a wedding or funeral in your local C of E Parish church
Disagree with your final statement. The Church in Wales is disestablished and we can still do the things you mention.
The Church in Wales is tiny and now significantly smaller than the Roman Catholic church in Wales. Of course it is now possible for Church in Wales vicars to refuse weddings or funerals to local Parishioners unless they attend church each week which they couldn't before when they were established.
Certainly I would expect conservative evangelical Vicars to start refusing local people weddings, funerals or baptisms in their church unless they attended each week if the C of E was disestablished. You also can't get married in the RC church unless a baptised RC who is expected to attend church regularly in the run up to marriage
I stand to be corrected, but at one time wasn't it essential for a marriage to be in an Established Church, or at least by a 'qualified' cleric? See the Fleet parsons of the 18th C.
I think Roman Catholic weddings have always been treated as valid, as were Presbyterian weddings in Scotland, England, and Wales, but not in Ireland.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
Big bit in Private Eye last week on this. Its potentially massive. And they are still running an inquiry based on how did we miss a murderer on the ward, when there is a chance that there was NO murderer, just poorly babies on an unsafe ward.
No-one has ever explained where the insulin came from.
The inquiry is due to report soon.
The new news is second order stuff. It’s not directly about the evidence against Letby. This doesn’t change the witness evidence about Letby’s behaviour, that Letby stole medical records, the notes Letby wrote to herself, or the other expert witnesses’ statements.it doesn’t change that the babies died when Letby was on duty and not when she wasn’t.
I don’t find the idea that the babies all died because it was an unsafe ward plausible. The deaths were unexpected, not of the illest babies, which is who you would you’d expect to be affected if this was just poor care. The defence at trial accepted that some of the babies must have been killed.
Why is the source of the insulin some big mystery?
I would imagine insulin use is recorded and you can't just go and help yourself to it.
The defence at the trial accepted the insulin evidence and by implication that some of the babies had been killed. There is a substantial number of experts (I know, I know, you pay your money etc) that consider the insulin evidence unsound, as the test was never repeated and was not used for its intended purpose. In my opinion the defence should never have accepted that any babies were murdered, because it then leads to "if not Letby, then who?".
As to the baby deaths - its instructive to see how the list of murdered babies arose. Baby deaths were added and removed over time. These were all premature babies on a (probably) unsafe ward.
As to your point that babies didn't die when Letby wasn't there - thats incorrect. There were other deaths, just ones that were believed to be natural causes.
I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty. Either way someone is going to be suffering. If she is innocent she is locked away for something that never happened.
And I think its pretty important to tell a jury that the expert whose evidence is key is under investigation by the GMC. That alone is probably grounds to allow the appeal.
The UK ending almost all jury trials is a genuine "moment". I feel a "Please pinch me - I want to wake up now." sensation. It's like we abolished the monarchy - & then some. We're led by people who have no interest in or respect for the assembled wisdom of centuries.
I do dislike glib interjections like this. For a long time there have been non-jury trials for criminal offences. Up to and including incarceration. I assume Mr Lilico is not in favour of putting every criminal case (including youth court) in front of a jury? So if you accept that some offences require a jury and others don’t then all you are is deciding where to draw the line.
What annoys me is that the current reduction of jury trials is that it is solely being driven by the problems of a justice system starved of resources, not neccessarily what is in the best interests of justice. Personally I do think there is room for greater uses of judges (and panels of judges) for criminal offences (e.g white collar crimes, etc). There is also a desperate need to speed up the time to court for victims of crime - even in a well funded justice system delays can be chronic and actually help no one (even the perpetrator).
Either way it is hardly the hyperbole Mr Lilico ascribes it.
Nail on head.
This whole argument has been very dishonestly framed as juries vs no juries. Even though that isn’t what we already have.
Nobody is arguing for MORE juries, only to keep it as now. Therefore implicitly everyone supports not having juries in one case.
Therefore the argument is really about what should we have juries for and what we shouldn’t. But that’s boring hence people framing it as something else.
I do enjoy people that say that Labour has no ideas and yet when they present one as a means to resolve a problem, it’s immediately shouted down. How do the opposition propose to reduce the backlog? After all it is entirely their fault (including members of Reform UK who defected)? The members of the last government have their fingers entirely on this one.
I think the criticism is that juries isn't the problem with the backlog.
In 1998, an Islamic country in west Asia with a poor human rights record, that has repeatedly attacked its neighbours and sponsored terrorism, acquired nuclear weapons. They now have 100-120 bombs. What did the US do about them? Very little.
Why are the twatty Bishops still in the HoL? Disestablish, now
Absolutely not, we have an established church and the Bishops should be there, they are less than 5% of the fully appointed unelected Lords anyway though a few more leaders from other faiths should be appointed as well. We should have kept the hereditaries too.
Disestablishment also removes the automatic right to a wedding or funeral in your local C of E Parish church
Disagree with your final statement. The Church in Wales is disestablished and we can still do the things you mention.
The Church in Wales is tiny and now significantly smaller than the Roman Catholic church in Wales. Of course it is now possible for Church in Wales vicars to refuse weddings or funerals to local Parishioners unless they attend church each week which they couldn't before when they were established.
Certainly I would expect conservative evangelical Vicars to start refusing local people weddings, funerals or baptisms in their church unless they attended each week if the C of E was disestablished. You also can't get married in the RC church unless a baptised RC who is expected to attend church regularly in the run up to marriage
I stand to be corrected, but at one time wasn't it essential for a marriage to be in an Established Church, or at least by a 'qualified' cleric? See the Fleet parsons of the 18th C.
I think Roman Catholic weddings have always been treated as valid, as were Presbyterian weddings in Scotland, England, and Wales, but not in Ireland.
Catholic marriages in England were legally invalid between 1754 and 1836. Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1753 mandated that all marriages take place in the Church of England (excluding Quakers and Jews) to be recognized. Before 1753, informal marriages (i.e. not recognised by the state) amongst all faiths were common, while post-1836, Catholics could legally marry in their own chapels.
The UK ending almost all jury trials is a genuine "moment". I feel a "Please pinch me - I want to wake up now." sensation. It's like we abolished the monarchy - & then some. We're led by people who have no interest in or respect for the assembled wisdom of centuries.
I do dislike glib interjections like this. For a long time there have been non-jury trials for criminal offences. Up to and including incarceration. I assume Mr Lilico is not in favour of putting every criminal case (including youth court) in front of a jury? So if you accept that some offences require a jury and others don’t then all you are is deciding where to draw the line.
What annoys me is that the current reduction of jury trials is that it is solely being driven by the problems of a justice system starved of resources, not neccessarily what is in the best interests of justice. Personally I do think there is room for greater uses of judges (and panels of judges) for criminal offences (e.g white collar crimes, etc). There is also a desperate need to speed up the time to court for victims of crime - even in a well funded justice system delays can be chronic and actually help no one (even the perpetrator).
Either way it is hardly the hyperbole Mr Lilico ascribes it.
Nail on head.
This whole argument has been very dishonestly framed as juries vs no juries. Even though that isn’t what we already have.
Nobody is arguing for MORE juries, only to keep it as now. Therefore implicitly everyone supports not having juries in one case.
Therefore the argument is really about what should we have juries for and what we shouldn’t. But that’s boring hence people framing it as something else.
I do enjoy people that say that Labour has no ideas and yet when they present one as a means to resolve a problem, it’s immediately shouted down. How do the opposition propose to reduce the backlog? After all it is entirely their fault (including members of Reform UK who defected)? The members of the last government have their fingers entirely on this one.
I think the criticism is that juries isn't the problem with the backlog.
It's unclear what problem is actually being solved, by restricting the right to trial by jury.
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
In 1998, an Islamic country in west Asia with a poor human rights record, that has repeatedly attacked its neighbours and sponsored terrorism, acquired nuclear weapons. They now have 100-120 bombs. What did the US do about them? Very little.
If the Iranian mullahs had been smart, which they are not, they would have quit the terrorism stuff, normalised relations with the west, renounced any intention to buy nukes, and spent a decade or two building the economy.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?
Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.
An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.
If I shared the law of the jungle mindset of the comfortably upholstered Geopolitical Men of PB, I’d advise Turkey to get nukes pdq.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Israel may have to wage a war against Turkey after Iran if it attempts to create any type of Islamic alliance.
He says any Islamic alliance would automatically be considered terrorism and a threat to Israel.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?
Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.
An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.
Iran has said it wants to wipe out Israel, it is its express foreign policy objective to do so, and has been developing a nuclear weapon in tandem:
Call me picky, but if I were Israel I would be thinking more of the risks to my own survival - particularly given the history of sudden attacks on it in the region - rather your sixth-form debating club semantics.
Hostility is not generally considered a sufficient casus belli. Lots of countries are hostile to other countries. Plenty of Israeli politicians have talked of a greater Israel that would see Palestine and Jordan removed from the map.
The people of Israel decide who to vote in. Israeli governments have repeatedly taken military action against Iran, against international law. The Israeli government repeatedly breaks international law in other ways, e.g. settlements on occupied territory, the recent invasion of Syria. If you think that’s been the right strategy for Israel, fair enough. I think Rabin’s attempts at peace were a better approach.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?
Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.
An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.
If I shared the law of the jungle mindset of the comfortably upholstered Geopolitical Men of PB, I’d advise Turkey to get nukes pdq,
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Israel may have to wage a war against Turkey after Iran if it attempts to create any type of Islamic alliance.
He says any Islamic alliance would automatically be considered terrorism and a threat to Israel.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
Big bit in Private Eye last week on this. Its potentially massive. And they are still running an inquiry based on how did we miss a murderer on the ward, when there is a chance that there was NO murderer, just poorly babies on an unsafe ward.
No-one has ever explained where the insulin came from.
The inquiry is due to report soon.
The new news is second order stuff. It’s not directly about the evidence against Letby. This doesn’t change the witness evidence about Letby’s behaviour, that Letby stole medical records, the notes Letby wrote to herself, or the other expert witnesses’ statements.it doesn’t change that the babies died when Letby was on duty and not when she wasn’t.
I don’t find the idea that the babies all died because it was an unsafe ward plausible. The deaths were unexpected, not of the illest babies, which is who you would you’d expect to be affected if this was just poor care. The defence at trial accepted that some of the babies must have been killed.
Why is the source of the insulin some big mystery?
I would imagine insulin use is recorded and you can't just go and help yourself to it.
The defence at the trial accepted the insulin evidence and by implication that some of the babies had been killed. There is a substantial number of experts (I know, I know, you pay your money etc) that consider the insulin evidence unsound, as the test was never repeated and was not used for its intended purpose. In my opinion the defence should never have accepted that any babies were murdered, because it then leads to "if not Letby, then who?".
As to the baby deaths - its instructive to see how the list of murdered babies arose. Baby deaths were added and removed over time. These were all premature babies on a (probably) unsafe ward.
As to your point that babies didn't die when Letby wasn't there - thats incorrect. There were other deaths, just ones that were believed to be natural causes.
I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty. Either way someone is going to be suffering. If she is innocent she is locked away for something that never happened.
And I think its pretty important to tell a jury that the expert whose evidence is key is under investigation by the GMC. That alone is probably grounds to allow the appeal.
Every drug administration is, or really, really ought to be, recorded. Especially on a ward where patients are in critical conditions. If drug administration isn't recorded, that's bad ward management. And the abnormal use of something like insulin ought to have been recognised, in that the stock was going down quicker than expected.
I agree with @turbotubbs about innocence or guilt, but there have been too many features of this case that make one uneasy.
I think it’s been fairly reliably established that Iran had a considerable quantity of HEU - 60% enriched.
About 90% of the effort is in enriching to 20% - that’s from the Manhattan Project docs.
Some of the core of Little Boy was only 50% enriched - the average across the core was 80%
So the Iranians, if they still have access to the material, have relatively little work to do, to get to bomb grade material.
In addition, HEU is much easier to design weapons with. Aside from the wasteful gun design, 2D implosion (crush a tube into a cylinder, rather than a hollow sphere into a ball), is possible - see the George test.
You can also build really high yield bombs as single stagers - Mk 18, Orange Herald.
A stay of execution for Sir Useless is very good news for oppositon parties. It's not great shakes for the country, but if it's short term pain for long term Labour obliteration, I think most would consider the price worth paying.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
Big bit in Private Eye last week on this. Its potentially massive. And they are still running an inquiry based on how did we miss a murderer on the ward, when there is a chance that there was NO murderer, just poorly babies on an unsafe ward.
No-one has ever explained where the insulin came from.
The inquiry is due to report soon.
The new news is second order stuff. It’s not directly about the evidence against Letby. This doesn’t change the witness evidence about Letby’s behaviour, that Letby stole medical records, the notes Letby wrote to herself, or the other expert witnesses’ statements.it doesn’t change that the babies died when Letby was on duty and not when she wasn’t.
I don’t find the idea that the babies all died because it was an unsafe ward plausible. The deaths were unexpected, not of the illest babies, which is who you would you’d expect to be affected if this was just poor care. The defence at trial accepted that some of the babies must have been killed.
Why is the source of the insulin some big mystery?
I don't disagree with any of this. However, I do think that (a) her defence team made some inexplicable (to me anyway) decisions at the first trial and (b) may be enough to push her under the bar of reasonable doubt. Disclosure failures, particularly in criminal trials, are amongst the most serious procedural failings. You can't have a fair trial without discovery/disclosure. It's impossible.
The Post Office Horizon scandal was not about a shite IT system it was about human malfeasance, of which disclosure failures were amongst the most serious.
In 1998, an Islamic country in west Asia with a poor human rights record, that has repeatedly attacked its neighbours and sponsored terrorism, acquired nuclear weapons. They now have 100-120 bombs. What did the US do about them? Very little.
The Iranians are now far more likely to build a bomb since the regime will now have concluded it is the only way to survive.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?
Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.
An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.
If I shared the law of the jungle mindset of the comfortably upholstered Geopolitical Men of PB, I’d advise Turkey to get nukes pdq,
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Israel may have to wage a war against Turkey after Iran if it attempts to create any type of Islamic alliance.
He says any Islamic alliance would automatically be considered terrorism and a threat to Israel.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?
Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.
An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.
Iran has said it wants to wipe out Israel, it is its express foreign policy objective to do so, and has been developing a nuclear weapon in tandem:
Call me picky, but if I were Israel I would be thinking more of the risks to my own survival - particularly given the history of sudden attacks on it in the region - rather your sixth-form debating club semantics.
Hostility is not generally considered a sufficient casus belli. Lots of countries are hostile to other countries. Plenty of Israeli politicians have talked of a greater Israel that would see Palestine and Jordan removed from the map.
The people of Israel decide who to vote in. Israeli governments have repeatedly taken military action against Iran, against international law. The Israeli government repeatedly breaks international law in other ways, e.g. settlements on occupied territory, the recent invasion of Syria. If you think that’s been the right strategy for Israel, fair enough. I think Rabin’s attempts at peace were a better approach.
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?
Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.
An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.
If I shared the law of the jungle mindset of the comfortably upholstered Geopolitical Men of PB, I’d advise Turkey to get nukes pdq,
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Israel may have to wage a war against Turkey after Iran if it attempts to create any type of Islamic alliance.
He says any Islamic alliance would automatically be considered terrorism and a threat to Israel.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
Big bit in Private Eye last week on this. Its potentially massive. And they are still running an inquiry based on how did we miss a murderer on the ward, when there is a chance that there was NO murderer, just poorly babies on an unsafe ward.
No-one has ever explained where the insulin came from.
The inquiry is due to report soon.
The new news is second order stuff. It’s not directly about the evidence against Letby. This doesn’t change the witness evidence about Letby’s behaviour, that Letby stole medical records, the notes Letby wrote to herself, or the other expert witnesses’ statements.it doesn’t change that the babies died when Letby was on duty and not when she wasn’t.
I don’t find the idea that the babies all died because it was an unsafe ward plausible. The deaths were unexpected, not of the illest babies, which is who you would you’d expect to be affected if this was just poor care. The defence at trial accepted that some of the babies must have been killed.
Why is the source of the insulin some big mystery?
I would imagine insulin use is recorded and you can't just go and help yourself to it.
The defence at the trial accepted the insulin evidence and by implication that some of the babies had been killed. There is a substantial number of experts (I know, I know, you pay your money etc) that consider the insulin evidence unsound, as the test was never repeated and was not used for its intended purpose. In my opinion the defence should never have accepted that any babies were murdered, because it then leads to "if not Letby, then who?".
As to the baby deaths - its instructive to see how the list of murdered babies arose. Baby deaths were added and removed over time. These were all premature babies on a (probably) unsafe ward.
As to your point that babies didn't die when Letby wasn't there - thats incorrect. There were other deaths, just ones that were believed to be natural causes.
I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty. Either way someone is going to be suffering. If she is innocent she is locked away for something that never happened.
And I think its pretty important to tell a jury that the expert whose evidence is key is under investigation by the GMC. That alone is probably grounds to allow the appeal.
Insulin is not a controlled drug, like morphine. It’s easy to help yourself to it if you are working in a hospital.
Clinically, you do have a sense of deaths being more or less expected. Not all deaths are equal. There was a large number of suspicious deaths. While some experts have questioned individual pieces of evidence, I don’t think anyone’s offered an explanation for the high number of suspicious deaths and their pattern with respect to Letby’s shifts. But, importantly, she wasn’t convicted on that alone. It was the additional evidence of her observed behaviour, the stolen records, the notes, etc.
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Didn't think she was any good either, but she's not PM.
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
In 1998, an Islamic country in west Asia with a poor human rights record, that has repeatedly attacked its neighbours and sponsored terrorism, acquired nuclear weapons. They now have 100-120 bombs. What did the US do about them? Very little.
Iran's style has historically been to use proxies to do its dirty work for it. It is, in the hackneyed phrase, a state sponsor of terrorism e.g. Hezbollah and the Houthis.
Its record of overtly attacking other countries (i.e. using its own forces to do so) is surprisingly sparce. The usual suspects on the left often describe Iran as not having launched an aggressive war in over 200 years, which is disingenuous at best, but the plausible deniability of the statement comes from that use of proxies. So a direct attack would be a departure in policy.
The Speaker should enforce the answering of questions .
What’s the point of PMQs if questions are just ignored ?
It was like performance art today and I just can’t see how that can continue. There’s always been selective answering of questions but Starmer didn’t even try and connect the dots today. Stuff on fuel duty and petrol prices and farms tax just got retorted to with answers on the war.
Badenoch misstepped on the war and she may pay the political price, but Starmer embarrasses himself and disrespects the House with that sort of display.
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Didn't think she was any good either, but she's not PM.
Kemi asking about COL and Starmer deflecting
Neither won that interaction but as has been said the Speaker should demand answers to questions
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
Only one loser
Kemi
Illogical Unhinged
Can you honestly sit there and say that the PM had a good PMQs? You clearly have a thing for Kemi, and maybe this is blinding you to how utterly, utterly unsuited to the role of PM SKS is. Whilst he remains, we are diminished
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Didn't think she was any good either, but she's not PM.
It was like that Knight from Monty Python, having its arm chopped off, a pause, and then repeating “but what about cost of petrol gone up this week, what are you doing about it. Don’t you realise Everyone’s upset about it?”
And then off was chopped a leg. And then she repeated it again.
@Northern_Al "Yes, there's quite a lot of bad faith going on here, epitomised by the 'end of trial by jury' hysteria. Currently, trial by jury is already restricted to around 2-3% of criminal cases. The proposals will reduce that further, as you say to offences that carry a 3 year+ sentence."
This too is a bad faith argument. Or, possibly, an ignorant one.
Under the proposals a defendant could be convicted by a judge alone and still be sentenced to more than 3 years without getting a jury trial, even though they should have been entitled to one.
Lammy made one of the worst bad faith arguments of all by comparing the right to a jury trial to scraping your knee and demanding to see a consultant. The ignorant pillock does not understand the damage that a prison sentence does to someone - their family, their work, their future life. To compare it to a scraped knee is appalling. As is the reference to victims and offenders. The latter are not offenders. They are defendants and they are innocent until proven guilty, a tenet Lammy and his idiot sidekick, Sackman, seem not to understand.
Finally, 47% of all appeals from magistrates courts are won. That right of appeal will be removed. The government is prepared to countenance 1 in 2 defendants being wrongly convicted.
In 1998, an Islamic country in west Asia with a poor human rights record, that has repeatedly attacked its neighbours and sponsored terrorism, acquired nuclear weapons. They now have 100-120 bombs. What did the US do about them? Very little.
If the Iranian mullahs had been smart, which they are not, they would have quit the terrorism stuff, normalised relations with the west, renounced any intention to buy nukes, and spent a decade or two building the economy.
And then bought a dozen nukes from Pakistan.
Pakistan wouldn’t have sold them to Iran! Sunni v Shia.
The Speaker should enforce the answering of questions .
What’s the point of PMQs if questions are just ignored ?
So fans of red and blue rosettes can vehemently decry the performance of their opponent and moderately praise the performance of their champion. Keeps them out of mischief.
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
Yep. There was a big public consultation a couple of years ago. I see no issue with it. We only started putting famous people on banknotes in the 1970s.
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Didn't think she was any good either, but she's not PM.
It was like that Knight from Monty Python, having its arm chopped off, a pause, and then repeating “but what about cost of petrol gone up this week, what are you doing about it. Don’t you realise Everyone’s upset about it?”
Ffs shes not there to respond to Starmers rants and obfuscation. He is there to answer questions. What do you think people will be more exercised about ultimately.... who said what about Iran when or being fucking skint because petrol is 2 quid a litre?
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Didn't think she was any good either, but she's not PM.
It was like that Knight from Monty Python, having its arm chopped off, a pause, and then repeating “but what about cost of petrol gone up this week, what are you doing about it. Don’t you realise Everyone’s upset about it?”
And then off was chopped a leg. And then she repeated it again.
I expect it is a very real worry for drivers as pump prices have already risen with who knows how much more
Add in energy and food inflation then the government have a real problem
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?
Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.
An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.
If I shared the law of the jungle mindset of the comfortably upholstered Geopolitical Men of PB, I’d advise Turkey to get nukes pdq.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Israel may have to wage a war against Turkey after Iran if it attempts to create any type of Islamic alliance.
He says any Islamic alliance would automatically be considered terrorism and a threat to Israel.
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
Only one loser
Kemi
Illogical Unhinged
Can you honestly sit there and say that the PM had a good PMQs? You clearly have a thing for Kemi, and maybe this is blinding you to how utterly, utterly unsuited to the role of PM SKS is. Whilst he remains, we are diminished
“ Can you honestly sit there and say that the PM had a good PMQs?”
I think we can certainly say that PMQs supports HY, in expecting Kemi removed in the summer.
It also confirmed Kemi and the Conservative position certainly has u turned on the war. Nothing has moved in the governments position since last Wednesday, but she didn’t ask a single question about it.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
Big bit in Private Eye last week on this. Its potentially massive. And they are still running an inquiry based on how did we miss a murderer on the ward, when there is a chance that there was NO murderer, just poorly babies on an unsafe ward.
No-one has ever explained where the insulin came from.
The inquiry is due to report soon.
The new news is second order stuff. It’s not directly about the evidence against Letby. This doesn’t change the witness evidence about Letby’s behaviour, that Letby stole medical records, the notes Letby wrote to herself, or the other expert witnesses’ statements.it doesn’t change that the babies died when Letby was on duty and not when she wasn’t.
I don’t find the idea that the babies all died because it was an unsafe ward plausible. The deaths were unexpected, not of the illest babies, which is who you would you’d expect to be affected if this was just poor care. The defence at trial accepted that some of the babies must have been killed.
Why is the source of the insulin some big mystery?
I would imagine insulin use is recorded and you can't just go and help yourself to it.
The defence at the trial accepted the insulin evidence and by implication that some of the babies had been killed. There is a substantial number of experts (I know, I know, you pay your money etc) that consider the insulin evidence unsound, as the test was never repeated and was not used for its intended purpose. In my opinion the defence should never have accepted that any babies were murdered, because it then leads to "if not Letby, then who?".
As to the baby deaths - its instructive to see how the list of murdered babies arose. Baby deaths were added and removed over time. These were all premature babies on a (probably) unsafe ward.
As to your point that babies didn't die when Letby wasn't there - thats incorrect. There were other deaths, just ones that were believed to be natural causes.
I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty. Either way someone is going to be suffering. If she is innocent she is locked away for something that never happened.
And I think its pretty important to tell a jury that the expert whose evidence is key is under investigation by the GMC. That alone is probably grounds to allow the appeal.
Every drug administration is, or really, really ought to be, recorded. Especially on a ward where patients are in critical conditions. If drug administration isn't recorded, that's bad ward management. And the abnormal use of something like insulin ought to have been recognised, in that the stock was going down quicker than expected.
I agree with @turbotubbs about innocence or guilt, but there have been too many features of this case that make one uneasy.
But, in the real world, you know there are sometimes stock errors, drugs going missing. Letby, if guilty, was not stealing large amounts of insulin over time. One vial going missing would have been all she needed, I believe.
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
Only one loser
Kemi
Illogical Unhinged
Can you honestly sit there and say that the PM had a good PMQs? You clearly have a thing for Kemi, and maybe this is blinding you to how utterly, utterly unsuited to the role of PM SKS is. Whilst he remains, we are diminished
“ Can you honestly sit there and say that the PM had a good PMQs?”
I think we can certainly say that PMQs supports HY, in expecting Kemi removed in the summer.
It also confirmed Kemi and the Conservative position certainly has u turned on the war. Nothing has moved in the governments position since last Wednesday, but she didn’t ask a single question about it.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?
Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.
An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.
If I shared the law of the jungle mindset of the comfortably upholstered Geopolitical Men of PB, I’d advise Turkey to get nukes pdq.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Israel may have to wage a war against Turkey after Iran if it attempts to create any type of Islamic alliance.
He says any Islamic alliance would automatically be considered terrorism and a threat to Israel.
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
I hope it will not cause anyone to have an aneurism but even having the monarch on banknotes is a relatively recent occurrence. Of course as the UK sinks further into deranged commemoration of past greatness it’s become fetishised. A bit of wildlife would be just fine.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
Big bit in Private Eye last week on this. Its potentially massive. And they are still running an inquiry based on how did we miss a murderer on the ward, when there is a chance that there was NO murderer, just poorly babies on an unsafe ward.
No-one has ever explained where the insulin came from.
The inquiry is due to report soon.
The new news is second order stuff. It’s not directly about the evidence against Letby. This doesn’t change the witness evidence about Letby’s behaviour, that Letby stole medical records, the notes Letby wrote to herself, or the other expert witnesses’ statements.it doesn’t change that the babies died when Letby was on duty and not when she wasn’t.
I don’t find the idea that the babies all died because it was an unsafe ward plausible. The deaths were unexpected, not of the illest babies, which is who you would you’d expect to be affected if this was just poor care. The defence at trial accepted that some of the babies must have been killed.
Why is the source of the insulin some big mystery?
I don't disagree with any of this. However, I do think that (a) her defence team made some inexplicable (to me anyway) decisions at the first trial and (b) may be enough to push her under the bar of reasonable doubt. Disclosure failures, particularly in criminal trials, are amongst the most serious procedural failings. You can't have a fair trial without discovery/disclosure. It's impossible.
The Post Office Horizon scandal was not about a shite IT system it was about human malfeasance, of which disclosure failures were amongst the most serious.
The Post Office scandal is a scandal about the legal profession. Every part of it failed: external counsel, in-house counsel, investigators, judges, the Ministry of Justice, the Attorney-General. All of them. It should be an object lesson in why you should never have lawyers making the final decisions in criminal matters, on why it is essential to have ordinary people at the heart of the system. Juries are one of the oldest and most democratic parts of our system. They bring ordinary wisdom into the process. They bring legitimacy and consent. And they bring the fundamental and necessary ability to tell the grand, the powerful, the experts, including lawyers, the self-important to get stuffed when they behave oppressively.
Little wonder Labour dislikes them: their period in government has been marked by contempt for ordinary people.
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?
Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.
An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.
If I shared the law of the jungle mindset of the comfortably upholstered Geopolitical Men of PB, I’d advise Turkey to get nukes pdq,
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Israel may have to wage a war against Turkey after Iran if it attempts to create any type of Islamic alliance.
He says any Islamic alliance would automatically be considered terrorism and a threat to Israel.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
Big bit in Private Eye last week on this. Its potentially massive. And they are still running an inquiry based on how did we miss a murderer on the ward, when there is a chance that there was NO murderer, just poorly babies on an unsafe ward.
No-one has ever explained where the insulin came from.
The inquiry is due to report soon.
The new news is second order stuff. It’s not directly about the evidence against Letby. This doesn’t change the witness evidence about Letby’s behaviour, that Letby stole medical records, the notes Letby wrote to herself, or the other expert witnesses’ statements.it doesn’t change that the babies died when Letby was on duty and not when she wasn’t.
I don’t find the idea that the babies all died because it was an unsafe ward plausible. The deaths were unexpected, not of the illest babies, which is who you would you’d expect to be affected if this was just poor care. The defence at trial accepted that some of the babies must have been killed.
Why is the source of the insulin some big mystery?
I don't disagree with any of this. However, I do think that (a) her defence team made some inexplicable (to me anyway) decisions at the first trial and (b) may be enough to push her under the bar of reasonable doubt. Disclosure failures, particularly in criminal trials, are amongst the most serious procedural failings. You can't have a fair trial without discovery/disclosure. It's impossible.
The Post Office Horizon scandal was not about a shite IT system it was about human malfeasance, of which disclosure failures were amongst the most serious.
Maybe her defence team were privy to a lot more information than we have…?
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Didn't think she was any good either, but she's not PM.
It was like that Knight from Monty Python, having its arm chopped off, a pause, and then repeating “but what about cost of petrol gone up this week, what are you doing about it. Don’t you realise Everyone’s upset about it?”
And then off was chopped a leg. And then she repeated it again.
I expect it is a very real worry for drivers as pump prices have already risen with who knows how much more
Add in energy and food inflation then the government have a real problem
Yes I agree, we are all very worried now, every one in UK. Especially businesses.
We have all been recently educated what any rise in energy costs does to everything, especially food inflation. It’s very worrying.
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
Only one loser
Kemi
Illogical Unhinged
Can you honestly sit there and say that the PM had a good PMQs? You clearly have a thing for Kemi, and maybe this is blinding you to how utterly, utterly unsuited to the role of PM SKS is. Whilst he remains, we are diminished
“ Can you honestly sit there and say that the PM had a good PMQs?”
I think we can certainly say that PMQs supports HY, in expecting Kemi removed in the summer.
It also confirmed Kemi and the Conservative position certainly has u turned on the war. Nothing has moved in the governments position since last Wednesday, but she didn’t ask a single question about it.
She was obsessed with a duty that has not been implemented.
She refused to admit her u turn on the war
He is entitled to hammer that point as it is very relevant and far more relevant than a duty that may never happen.
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
Yep. There was a big public consultation a couple of years ago. I see no issue with it. We only started putting famous people on banknotes in the 1970s.
Scottish notes already have animals and they have nabbed the cool ones: red squirrel, otter, osprey.
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Didn't think she was any good either, but she's not PM.
It was like that Knight from Monty Python, having its arm chopped off, a pause, and then repeating “but what about cost of petrol gone up this week, what are you doing about it. Don’t you realise Everyone’s upset about it?”
Ffs shes not there to respond to Starmers rants and obfuscation. He is there to answer questions. What do you think people will be more exercised about ultimately.... who said what about Iran when or being fucking skint because petrol is 2 quid a litre?
I think it’s the former. All the voters clearly know Kemi backed the war initially, to make hay in clear blue water, and then u turned. And her MPs know it. It is a big deal.
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Didn't think she was any good either, but she's not PM.
It was like that Knight from Monty Python, having its arm chopped off, a pause, and then repeating “but what about cost of petrol gone up this week, what are you doing about it. Don’t you realise Everyone’s upset about it?”
And then off was chopped a leg. And then she repeated it again.
I expect it is a very real worry for drivers as pump prices have already risen with who knows how much more
Add in energy and food inflation then the government have a real problem
You know the truth she knows the trutj
Petrol prices have risen due to a war she wished to get the UK aggressively involved in.
Future fuel duty policy 6 months away have absolutely fuck all fuck all to do with those rises.
She is unhinged and had no apology no contrition for her u turn
Personally, I would say that Starmer has proven to be closer to my position on this than any of the leaders. If he wasn't so woolly, incoherent and inconsistent he might be doing even better.
He should take the flack from Trump and wear it with pride, it will do him more political good than anything else he or his government has done, well, ever actually.
My critique of Starmer and indeed the other European nations is that they have not gone far enough. They should have made it clear that there was no legal basis for this war, that it was and is a criminal act and that they disapprove of what both the US and Israel have done. After the Greenland fiasco Europe needs to stop aligning with the US by default. If they want a rules based system to survive they need to speak up for it. And that includes calling out your erstwhile friends when they act badly.
It is absolutely farcical to suggest there is no legal basis for war. Iran has been literally attacked Israel directly and indirectly and threatens their security, that is classic self-defence as has been the casus belli for plenty of wars over decades.
Some here have argued we should not join in as we are not Israel's ally, which I would dispute. But Israel absolutely has the right to fight Iran as part of its self-defence, and America is Israel's ally so has every right to assist them.
You need a proximate causi belli for it to classify as a just war.
Just stop trying to achieve from philosophical principles you don’t understand. We all get that you want to bash the baddies and that’s fine. Just don’t try to justify it.
There are multiple proximate casus bellis.
Iran attacking Israel via Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran developing nukes.
I can't remember the figures but hasn't Israel has 10s of thousands of rockets fired at it over the years, with the ultimate source being Iran?
Iran does not directly control Hamas or Hezbollah, but it does support them and it works closely with Hezbollah. That makes the case for a casus belli a bit more complicated.
Iran developing nuclear weapons does not create a casus belli for Israel under international law, AIUI. (Israel developed nuclear weapons: does that mean every neighbour of Israel has a casus belli against Israel?)
At the time that Israel developed nuclear weapons, nearly every neighbour had declared permanent war on them (some in a performative manner).
Since then, nearly all signed peace treaties with Israel
Many nearby countries were not at war with Israel (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, Cyprus, and of course Iran). Was a casus belli created by Israel acquiring nuclear weapons?
Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.
An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.
If I shared the law of the jungle mindset of the comfortably upholstered Geopolitical Men of PB, I’d advise Turkey to get nukes pdq,
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Israel may have to wage a war against Turkey after Iran if it attempts to create any type of Islamic alliance.
He says any Islamic alliance would automatically be considered terrorism and a threat to Israel.
It's not awks at all, it's simple. NATO wouldn’t do shit about it.
End of NATO then.
Absent a massive effort by the next US administration, that's probably on the cards anyway. This would change it from a drawn out demise to a quick despatch.
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
@Northern_Al "Yes, there's quite a lot of bad faith going on here, epitomised by the 'end of trial by jury' hysteria. Currently, trial by jury is already restricted to around 2-3% of criminal cases. The proposals will reduce that further, as you say to offences that carry a 3 year+ sentence."
This too is a bad faith argument. Or, possibly, an ignorant one.
Under the proposals a defendant could be convicted by a judge alone and still be sentenced to more than 3 years without getting a jury trial, even though they should have been entitled to one.
Lammy made one of the worst bad faith arguments of all by comparing the right to a jury trial to scraping your knee and demanding to see a consultant. The ignorant pillock does not understand the damage that a prison sentence does to someone - their family, their work, their future life. To compare it to a scraped knee is appalling. As is the reference to victims and offenders. The latter are not offenders. They are defendants and they are innocent until proven guilty, a tenet Lammy and his idiot sidekick, Sackman, seem not to understand.
Finally, 47% of all appeals from magistrates courts are won. That right of appeal will be removed. The government is prepared to countenance 1 in 2 defendants being wrongly convicted.
This is utterly utterly shameful from Labour.
If 47% of appeals from magistrates courts are won, that does not imply that the government is prepared to countenance 1 in 2 defendants being wrongly convicted, does it? The denominator should be all convictions at magistrates court, not just those who appeal.
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Didn't think she was any good either, but she's not PM.
It was like that Knight from Monty Python, having its arm chopped off, a pause, and then repeating “but what about cost of petrol gone up this week, what are you doing about it. Don’t you realise Everyone’s upset about it?”
Ffs shes not there to respond to Starmers rants and obfuscation. He is there to answer questions. What do you think people will be more exercised about ultimately.... who said what about Iran when or being fucking skint because petrol is 2 quid a litre?
You know, she knows the rise has fuck all to do with fuel duty.
He was challenging her quite rightly to apologise for her attempts to lie about the war
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Didn't think she was any good either, but she's not PM.
It was like that Knight from Monty Python, having its arm chopped off, a pause, and then repeating “but what about cost of petrol gone up this week, what are you doing about it. Don’t you realise Everyone’s upset about it?”
Ffs shes not there to respond to Starmers rants and obfuscation. He is there to answer questions. What do you think people will be more exercised about ultimately.... who said what about Iran when or being fucking skint because petrol is 2 quid a litre?
I think it’s the former. All the voters clearly know Kemi backed the war initially, to make hay in clear blue water, and then u turned. And her MPs know it. It is a big deal.
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
Only one loser
Kemi
Illogical Unhinged
Can you honestly sit there and say that the PM had a good PMQs? You clearly have a thing for Kemi, and maybe this is blinding you to how utterly, utterly unsuited to the role of PM SKS is. Whilst he remains, we are diminished
The Speaker should enforce the answering of questions .
What’s the point of PMQs if questions are just ignored ?
PMQs has been a joke for years, but this is as bad as it has ever been. Starmer hardly ever answers a question from the opposition benches. He comes across terribly, even Brown was better than this.
I'd bin the whole thing, it rarely enlightens, and it has become mainly opposition gotchas versus government bench ingratiating. It makes the whole institution, and the country by association, look like unserious and worthless.
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
Big bit in Private Eye last week on this. Its potentially massive. And they are still running an inquiry based on how did we miss a murderer on the ward, when there is a chance that there was NO murderer, just poorly babies on an unsafe ward.
No-one has ever explained where the insulin came from.
The inquiry is due to report soon.
The new news is second order stuff. It’s not directly about the evidence against Letby. This doesn’t change the witness evidence about Letby’s behaviour, that Letby stole medical records, the notes Letby wrote to herself, or the other expert witnesses’ statements.it doesn’t change that the babies died when Letby was on duty and not when she wasn’t.
I don’t find the idea that the babies all died because it was an unsafe ward plausible. The deaths were unexpected, not of the illest babies, which is who you would you’d expect to be affected if this was just poor care. The defence at trial accepted that some of the babies must have been killed.
Why is the source of the insulin some big mystery?
I don't disagree with any of this. However, I do think that (a) her defence team made some inexplicable (to me anyway) decisions at the first trial and (b) may be enough to push her under the bar of reasonable doubt. Disclosure failures, particularly in criminal trials, are amongst the most serious procedural failings. You can't have a fair trial without discovery/disclosure. It's impossible.
The Post Office Horizon scandal was not about a shite IT system it was about human malfeasance, of which disclosure failures were amongst the most serious.
The Post Office scandal is a scandal about the legal profession. Every part of it failed: external counsel, in-house counsel, investigators, judges, the Ministry of Justice, the Attorney-General. All of them. It should be an object lesson in why you should never have lawyers making the final decisions in criminal matters, on why it is essential to have ordinary people at the heart of the system. Juries are one of the oldest and most democratic parts of our system. They bring ordinary wisdom into the process. They bring legitimacy and consent. And they bring the fundamental and necessary ability to tell the grand, the powerful, the experts, including lawyers, the self-important to get stuffed when they behave oppressively.
Little wonder Labour dislikes them: their period in government has been marked by contempt for ordinary people.
There were some jury trials in Post Office cases that still found people guilty. Were juries the cure for the Horizon scandal?
Tory line on fuel duty is we lied about planning to increase it in 15 consecutive budgets to make our future forecasts look like they add up. Which is course true, but not quite sure they should be so open about it.
@Northern_Al "Yes, there's quite a lot of bad faith going on here, epitomised by the 'end of trial by jury' hysteria. Currently, trial by jury is already restricted to around 2-3% of criminal cases. The proposals will reduce that further, as you say to offences that carry a 3 year+ sentence."
This too is a bad faith argument. Or, possibly, an ignorant one.
Under the proposals a defendant could be convicted by a judge alone and still be sentenced to more than 3 years without getting a jury trial, even though they should have been entitled to one.
Lammy made one of the worst bad faith arguments of all by comparing the right to a jury trial to scraping your knee and demanding to see a consultant. The ignorant pillock does not understand the damage that a prison sentence does to someone - their family, their work, their future life. To compare it to a scraped knee is appalling. As is the reference to victims and offenders. The latter are not offenders. They are defendants and they are innocent until proven guilty, a tenet Lammy and his idiot sidekick, Sackman, seem not to understand.
Finally, 47% of all appeals from magistrates courts are won. That right of appeal will be removed. The government is prepared to countenance 1 in 2 defendants being wrongly convicted.
This is utterly utterly shameful from Labour.
If you choose to tag me and cite one of my posts, it would be courteous of you to give the full post rather than being selective. After the paragraph you cite, I went on to say: The right to trial by jury is not being abolished. It's already heavily restricted, and the proposal is to restrict it further. It's arguable whether this is a good idea or not, but what's not arguable is that 'they are abolishing the ancient right of trial by jury' is an untrue, bad faith argument.
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
That consultation is news to me, and a sample of 44k seems very low to make such a significant change.
How boring.
Might I suggest that nothing ever gets done in the country because of the attitude that bank note design is “such a significant change” and a consultation with 44,000 is insufficient?
@Northern_Al "Yes, there's quite a lot of bad faith going on here, epitomised by the 'end of trial by jury' hysteria. Currently, trial by jury is already restricted to around 2-3% of criminal cases. The proposals will reduce that further, as you say to offences that carry a 3 year+ sentence."
This too is a bad faith argument. Or, possibly, an ignorant one.
Under the proposals a defendant could be convicted by a judge alone and still be sentenced to more than 3 years without getting a jury trial, even though they should have been entitled to one.
Lammy made one of the worst bad faith arguments of all by comparing the right to a jury trial to scraping your knee and demanding to see a consultant. The ignorant pillock does not understand the damage that a prison sentence does to someone - their family, their work, their future life. To compare it to a scraped knee is appalling. As is the reference to victims and offenders. The latter are not offenders. They are defendants and they are innocent until proven guilty, a tenet Lammy and his idiot sidekick, Sackman, seem not to understand.
Finally, 47% of all appeals from magistrates courts are won. That right of appeal will be removed. The government is prepared to countenance 1 in 2 defendants being wrongly convicted.
This is utterly utterly shameful from Labour.
If 47% of appeals from magistrates courts are won, that does not imply that the government is prepared to countenance 1 in 2 defendants being wrongly convicted, does it? The denominator should be all convictions at magistrates court, not just those who appeal.
The percentage of convictions appealed is under 1%, I think ? So while the success rate is very high, it doesn't in itself imply a large number of wrong convictions. If anything, perhaps the opposite.
Looks like the venerable and rightly respected David Davis may be about to get his break in the Letby case.
Police and CPS have confirmed that the Prosecution did not disclose that a key witness Professor Hindmarsh who worked at relevant Maternity Unit was himself under investigation for serious allegations of patient neglect and care from a period at Great Ormond Street Hospital.
This must raise ever further very serious doubts about the original conviction
Big bit in Private Eye last week on this. Its potentially massive. And they are still running an inquiry based on how did we miss a murderer on the ward, when there is a chance that there was NO murderer, just poorly babies on an unsafe ward.
No-one has ever explained where the insulin came from.
The inquiry is due to report soon.
The new news is second order stuff. It’s not directly about the evidence against Letby. This doesn’t change the witness evidence about Letby’s behaviour, that Letby stole medical records, the notes Letby wrote to herself, or the other expert witnesses’ statements.it doesn’t change that the babies died when Letby was on duty and not when she wasn’t.
I don’t find the idea that the babies all died because it was an unsafe ward plausible. The deaths were unexpected, not of the illest babies, which is who you would you’d expect to be affected if this was just poor care. The defence at trial accepted that some of the babies must have been killed.
Why is the source of the insulin some big mystery?
I don't disagree with any of this. However, I do think that (a) her defence team made some inexplicable (to me anyway) decisions at the first trial and (b) may be enough to push her under the bar of reasonable doubt. Disclosure failures, particularly in criminal trials, are amongst the most serious procedural failings. You can't have a fair trial without discovery/disclosure. It's impossible.
The Post Office Horizon scandal was not about a shite IT system it was about human malfeasance, of which disclosure failures were amongst the most serious.
Maybe her defence team were privy to a lot more information than we have…?
I know we disagree on this (to the extent that I am more open to this being a miscarriage of justice then you, I think). Have you read MD's reports on this in Private Eye? There is an awful lot that we DO know about how the trial unfolded and indeed on how the case against her came to be. The media at the time portrayed the Letby shifts vs deaths chart as a slam dunk. It may not have been in the court room (I wasn't there). However the simple story of X babies' deaths were thought to be murder, the roster was checked and Lo! only Letby was on shift for all is not correct. When the case was being assembled deaths were added and removed, and ISTR some were removed because Letby wasn't on shift.
Time will tell and I hope for all concerned that justice is done. I don't think we are there yet, though. Cases like this are hard. There is an example from the Netherlands were a nurse was convicted of multiple accounts of murder and then later exonerated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk_case
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Didn't think she was any good either, but she's not PM.
Kemi asking about COL and Starmer deflecting
Neither won that interaction but as has been said the Speaker should demand answers to questions
A duty increase in 6 months is not cost of living.
She's utterly embarrassed herself asking for aggressive boots on the ground last week and pathetically back tracking yesterday
I would make the point that you were in complete denial of her aggression comments last week, and her pathetic attempts to deflect yesterday
Now you seek to justify an increase in something 6 months away is impacting now, which is patently bullshit..
May be your apology for that will echo down the line for next week
@Northern_Al "Yes, there's quite a lot of bad faith going on here, epitomised by the 'end of trial by jury' hysteria. Currently, trial by jury is already restricted to around 2-3% of criminal cases. The proposals will reduce that further, as you say to offences that carry a 3 year+ sentence."
This too is a bad faith argument. Or, possibly, an ignorant one.
Under the proposals a defendant could be convicted by a judge alone and still be sentenced to more than 3 years without getting a jury trial, even though they should have been entitled to one.
Lammy made one of the worst bad faith arguments of all by comparing the right to a jury trial to scraping your knee and demanding to see a consultant. The ignorant pillock does not understand the damage that a prison sentence does to someone - their family, their work, their future life. To compare it to a scraped knee is appalling. As is the reference to victims and offenders. The latter are not offenders. They are defendants and they are innocent until proven guilty, a tenet Lammy and his idiot sidekick, Sackman, seem not to understand.
Finally, 47% of all appeals from magistrates courts are won. That right of appeal will be removed. The government is prepared to countenance 1 in 2 defendants being wrongly convicted.
This is utterly utterly shameful from Labour.
If you choose to tag me and cite one of my posts, it would be courteous of you to give the full post rather than being selective. After the paragraph you cite, I went on to say: The right to trial by jury is not being abolished. It's already heavily restricted, and the proposal is to restrict it further. It's arguable whether this is a good idea or not, but what's not arguable is that 'they are abolishing the ancient right of trial by jury' is an untrue, bad faith argument.
No that is disingenuous. They are abolishing it for a large number of cases. Not restricting, abolishing. If you are one of thoise cases then you will not have your right to Jury trial restricted, you will have it removed. This is a decision which will destroy lives. Anyone supporting it should be ashamed.
The Speaker should enforce the answering of questions .
What’s the point of PMQs if questions are just ignored ?
PMQs has been a joke for years, but this is as bad as it has ever been. Starmer hardly ever answers a question from the opposition benches. He comes across terribly, even Brown was better than this.
I'd bin the whole thing, it rarely enlightens, and it has become mainly opposition gotchas versus government bench ingratiating. It makes the whole institution, and the country by association, look like unserious and worthless.
The speaker needs to intervene and insist on an answer or just bin the charade
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
Only one loser
Kemi
Illogical Unhinged
Can you honestly sit there and say that the PM had a good PMQs? You clearly have a thing for Kemi, and maybe this is blinding you to how utterly, utterly unsuited to the role of PM SKS is. Whilst he remains, we are diminished
Yes
6 0 to Starmer second week running
You sometimes make some good points on here and hold positions I can very much agree with. But your blatent partisanship does get very tiring.
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
The Speaker should enforce the answering of questions .
What’s the point of PMQs if questions are just ignored ?
PMQs has been a joke for years, but this is as bad as it has ever been. Starmer hardly ever answers a question from the opposition benches. He comes across terribly, even Brown was better than this.
I'd bin the whole thing, it rarely enlightens, and it has become mainly opposition gotchas versus government bench ingratiating. It makes the whole institution, and the country by association, look like unserious and worthless.
4 times he told her she was talking about a policy 6 months away from being implemented
Twice he told her it was being monitored along with cost of living issues
She's so fixated on reading her pre prepared lines and smirking, she never listens
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
Only one loser
Kemi
Illogical Unhinged
Can you honestly sit there and say that the PM had a good PMQs? You clearly have a thing for Kemi, and maybe this is blinding you to how utterly, utterly unsuited to the role of PM SKS is. Whilst he remains, we are diminished
The probable curse of the grey area and the procedural policeman.
I've just heard from an acquaintance with Fibromyalgia (a neurological condition where walking any distance is physically painful), who received an electrical assist cycle under a Council backed leasing scheme 6 months ago.
Her mobility aid has now been seized by the police after a "wheel speed" test. She has not modified it. I have no idea whether there is a 10% MOE on these.
1st complaint has been rejected, and it sounds like it is going to be a nightmare to get it back. Meanwhile, she is more or less stuck at home.
I have advised talking to MP and Police & Crime Commissioner, and the media, to get it our of the "routine" stream.
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
Yep. There was a big public consultation a couple of years ago. I see no issue with it. We only started putting famous people on banknotes in the 1970s.
Scottish notes already have animals and they have nabbed the cool ones: red squirrel, otter, osprey.
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
For gods sake, SKS is on full whine mode. I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
But why didn’t Kemi stand up for herself? Comeback with what Starmer was pushing was spin?
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Didn't think she was any good either, but she's not PM.
It was like that Knight from Monty Python, having its arm chopped off, a pause, and then repeating “but what about cost of petrol gone up this week, what are you doing about it. Don’t you realise Everyone’s upset about it?”
Ffs shes not there to respond to Starmers rants and obfuscation. He is there to answer questions. What do you think people will be more exercised about ultimately.... who said what about Iran when or being fucking skint because petrol is 2 quid a litre?
I think it’s the former. All the voters clearly know Kemi backed the war initially, to make hay in clear blue water, and then u turned. And her MPs know it. It is a big deal.
I don't. And it isn't
No point arguing about it now, as we need to see how it pans out.
But I’m sure there were some in the party telling her the gung ho front bench position was a mistake and they didn’t like it, all the way through until her u-turn.
The Speaker should enforce the answering of questions .
What’s the point of PMQs if questions are just ignored ?
PMQs has been a joke for years, but this is as bad as it has ever been. Starmer hardly ever answers a question from the opposition benches. He comes across terribly, even Brown was better than this.
I'd bin the whole thing, it rarely enlightens, and it has become mainly opposition gotchas versus government bench ingratiating. It makes the whole institution, and the country by association, look like unserious and worthless.
4 times he told her she was talking about a policy 6 months away from being implemented
Twice he told her it was being monitored along with cost of living issues
She's so fixated on reading her pre prepared lines and smirking, she never listens
Badenoch is not the only person who asked questions. Starmer doesn't really answer any question from any person on the opposition benches, and questions from his own benches are simply "aren't we great".
The whole exercise is a joke. It serves no purpose. It's just a bunch of idiots looking for a soundbite or something to stick on a campaing leaflet. It does not reflect well on the country.
Comments
In any case, Starmer has stuck by his decision and that was obviously correct.
It's standard protocol to follow PMQ
Besides any serious person would want time to look at what's in the reports
Now we all know Kemi reads ore prepared researcher notes and jokes, so even she must be relieved.
There will be plenty of time for anyone who wants to waste time on this irrelevence to do so in the coming days with Urgent Questions or requests if they wish to.
I suspect the vast majority of the general public outside f the Westminster bubble who have already made their mind up on Mandelson would prefer the opposition parties to put their time to much better use.
Next
Iran has been in breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, but that’s not a casus belli and Israel isn’t signed up to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, so it’s nowt to do with them.
An imminent threat of attack is a casus belli, but just acquiring weapons does not demonstrate an imminent threat of attack. AIUI.
I’ll post mine again, as we are all on different runners!
13:20 - Taurus Bay {long shot rabbit from the hat}
14:00 - Wendigo
14:40 - The Yellow Clay
15:20 - Stumptown
16:00 - L'Eau Du Sud
16:40 - Be Aware
17:20 - Love Sign d'Aunou
It’s a worry to me you’ve gone for something different in the 2M flat race with uphill finish Stodge! I poured over it for hours and never seriously considered keep him company. I was thinking this is endurance test for the poor newbies.
PS I only had two winners not 7 yesterday. Only in my dreams I had 7!
There is no remotely plausible scenario in which Iran would have had "30 to 40 nuclear bombs" a year from now
This isn't even the usual case of Witkoff not doing his homework and not understanding his brief. Here he's just making shit up
https://x.com/glcarlstrom/status/2031631806718476698
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_won't_exist_in_25_years
Call me picky, but if I were Israel I would be thinking more of the risks to my own survival - particularly given the history of sudden attacks on it in the region - rather your sixth-form debating club semantics.
The defence at the trial accepted the insulin evidence and by implication that some of the babies had been killed. There is a substantial number of experts (I know, I know, you pay your money etc) that consider the insulin evidence unsound, as the test was never repeated and was not used for its intended purpose. In my opinion the defence should never have accepted that any babies were murdered, because it then leads to "if not Letby, then who?".
As to the baby deaths - its instructive to see how the list of murdered babies arose. Baby deaths were added and removed over time. These were all premature babies on a (probably) unsafe ward.
As to your point that babies didn't die when Letby wasn't there - thats incorrect. There were other deaths, just ones that were believed to be natural causes.
I have no idea if she is innocent or guilty. Either way someone is going to be suffering. If she is innocent she is locked away for something that never happened.
And I think its pretty important to tell a jury that the expert whose evidence is key is under investigation by the GMC. That alone is probably grounds to allow the appeal.
I'm sure he thinks this is a winning like of attack on Kemi, and maybe it is but my word doesn't he sound reduced.
No winners here today, only whiners.
And then bought a dozen nukes from Pakistan.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett says Israel may have to wage a war against Turkey after Iran if it attempts to create any type of Islamic alliance.
He says any Islamic alliance would automatically be considered terrorism and a threat to Israel.
“We will not sit idle.”
https://x.com/shadowofezra/status/2031556834603979230?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
The people of Israel decide who to vote in. Israeli governments have repeatedly taken military action against Iran, against international law. The Israeli government repeatedly breaks international law in other ways, e.g. settlements on occupied territory, the recent invasion of Syria. If you think that’s been the right strategy for Israel, fair enough. I think Rabin’s attempts at peace were a better approach.
I agree with @turbotubbs about innocence or guilt, but there have been too many features of this case that make one uneasy.
About 90% of the effort is in enriching to 20% - that’s from the Manhattan Project docs.
Some of the core of Little Boy was only 50% enriched - the average across the core was 80%
So the Iranians, if they still have access to the material, have relatively little work to do, to get to bomb grade material.
In addition, HEU is much easier to design weapons with. Aside from the wasteful gun design, 2D implosion (crush a tube into a cylinder, rather than a hollow sphere into a ball), is possible - see the George test.
You can also build really high yield bombs as single stagers - Mk 18, Orange Herald.
The Post Office Horizon scandal was not about a shite IT system it was about human malfeasance, of which disclosure failures were amongst the most serious.
And Starmer told to stop questioning LOTO in PMQs, lol
It was like watching a boat in a boat show parade being blown to bits by a sub ☹️
Questions about increasing Petrol duty based on a measure that may not happen until September.
If she thinks that the public blame Labour for increasing prices, they should blame a War that the Tories wanted to escalate.
Badenoch is unhinged.
Clinically, you do have a sense of deaths being more or less expected. Not all deaths are equal. There was a large number of suspicious deaths. While some experts have questioned individual pieces of evidence, I don’t think anyone’s offered an explanation for the high number of suspicious deaths and their pattern with respect to Letby’s shifts. But, importantly, she wasn’t convicted on that alone. It was the additional evidence of her observed behaviour, the stolen records, the notes, etc.
What’s the point of PMQs if questions are just ignored ?
Kemi
Illogical
Unhinged
Its record of overtly attacking other countries (i.e. using its own forces to do so) is surprisingly sparce. The usual suspects on the left often describe Iran as not having launched an aggressive war in over 200 years, which is disingenuous at best, but the plausible deniability of the statement comes from that use of proxies. So a direct attack would be a departure in policy.
Hunt spent nearly £100bn in the Tory energy bill pay out, 10% windfall taxes 90% on the UK credit card.
Badenoch misstepped on the war and she may pay the political price, but Starmer embarrasses himself and disrespects the House with that sort of display.
Neither won that interaction but as has been said the Speaker should demand answers to questions
You clearly have a thing for Kemi, and maybe this is blinding you to how utterly, utterly unsuited to the role of PM SKS is.
Whilst he remains, we are diminished
And then off was chopped a leg. And then she repeated it again.
@Northern_Al "Yes, there's quite a lot of bad faith going on here, epitomised by the 'end of trial by jury' hysteria. Currently, trial by jury is already restricted to around 2-3% of criminal cases. The proposals will reduce that further, as you say to offences that carry a 3 year+ sentence."
This too is a bad faith argument. Or, possibly, an ignorant one.
Under the proposals a defendant could be convicted by a judge alone and still be sentenced to more than 3 years without getting a jury trial, even though they should have been entitled to one.
Lammy made one of the worst bad faith arguments of all by comparing the right to a jury trial to scraping your knee and demanding to see a consultant. The ignorant pillock does not understand the damage that a prison sentence does to someone - their family, their work, their future life. To compare it to a scraped knee is appalling. As is the reference to victims and offenders. The latter are not offenders. They are defendants and they are innocent until proven guilty, a tenet Lammy and his idiot sidekick, Sackman, seem not to understand.
Finally, 47% of all appeals from magistrates courts are won. That right of appeal will be removed. The government is prepared to countenance 1 in 2 defendants being wrongly convicted.
This is utterly utterly shameful from Labour.
"UK wildlife to replace historical figures like Churchill and Shakespeare on banknotes
King Charles' portrait will continue to appear on the next series of notes - but they will "showcase the UK's rich and varied wildlife"."
https://news.sky.com/story/uk-wildlife-to-replace-historical-figures-on-next-series-of-banknotes-13518137
What do you think people will be more exercised about ultimately.... who said what about Iran when or being fucking skint because petrol is 2 quid a litre?
Add in energy and food inflation then the government have a real problem
Fortunately, the US is an ally on both and we can rely on the US to exert its influence behind the scenes and bring stability to the region.
What’s that? We can’t…?!
I think we can certainly say that PMQs supports HY, in expecting Kemi removed in the summer.
It also confirmed Kemi and the Conservative position certainly has u turned on the war. Nothing has moved in the governments position since last Wednesday, but she didn’t ask a single question about it.
Little wonder Labour dislikes them: their period in government has been marked by contempt for ordinary people.
We have all been recently educated what any rise in energy costs does to everything, especially food inflation. It’s very worrying.
She refused to admit her u turn on the war
He is entitled to hammer that point as it is very relevant and far more relevant than a duty that may never happen.
I guess we can now do beavers.
But then what?
Petrol prices have risen due to a war she wished to get the UK aggressively involved in.
Future fuel duty policy 6 months away have absolutely fuck all fuck all to do with those rises.
She is unhinged and had no apology no contrition for her u turn
Starmer was spot on to keep making this point.
This would change it from a drawn out demise to a quick despatch.
He was challenging her quite rightly to apologise for her attempts to lie about the war
6 0 to Starmer second week running
I'd bin the whole thing, it rarely enlightens, and it has become mainly opposition gotchas versus government bench ingratiating. It makes the whole institution, and the country by association, look like unserious and worthless.
How boring.
After the paragraph you cite, I went on to say:
The right to trial by jury is not being abolished. It's already heavily restricted, and the proposal is to restrict it further. It's arguable whether this is a good idea or not, but what's not arguable is that 'they are abolishing the ancient right of trial by jury' is an untrue, bad faith argument.
So while the success rate is very high, it doesn't in itself imply a large number of wrong convictions.
If anything, perhaps the opposite.
That said, I oppose this legislation.
The media at the time portrayed the Letby shifts vs deaths chart as a slam dunk. It may not have been in the court room (I wasn't there). However the simple story of X babies' deaths were thought to be murder, the roster was checked and Lo! only Letby was on shift for all is not correct. When the case was being assembled deaths were added and removed, and ISTR some were removed because Letby wasn't on shift.
Time will tell and I hope for all concerned that justice is done. I don't think we are there yet, though. Cases like this are hard. There is an example from the Netherlands were a nurse was convicted of multiple accounts of murder and then later exonerated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucia_de_Berk_case
She's utterly embarrassed herself asking for aggressive boots on the ground last week and pathetically back tracking yesterday
I would make the point that you were in complete denial of her aggression comments last week, and her pathetic attempts to deflect yesterday
Now you seek to justify an increase in something 6 months away is impacting now, which is patently bullshit..
May be your apology for that will echo down the line for next week
Twice he told her it was being monitored along with cost of living issues
She's so fixated on reading her pre prepared lines and smirking, she never listens
I've just heard from an acquaintance with Fibromyalgia (a neurological condition where walking any distance is physically painful), who received an electrical assist cycle under a Council backed leasing scheme 6 months ago.
Her mobility aid has now been seized by the police after a "wheel speed" test. She has not modified it. I have no idea whether there is a 10% MOE on these.
1st complaint has been rejected, and it sounds like it is going to be a nightmare to get it back. Meanwhile, she is more or less stuck at home.
I have advised talking to MP and Police & Crime Commissioner, and the media, to get it our of the "routine" stream.
What a f*cking mess. We are seeing more of these.
But I’m sure there were some in the party telling her the gung ho front bench position was a mistake and they didn’t like it, all the way through until her u-turn.
The whole exercise is a joke. It serves no purpose. It's just a bunch of idiots looking for a soundbite or something to stick on a campaing leaflet. It does not reflect well on the country.