This evening: @DAGToddBlanche and I are announcing an 11 count indictment against the Southen Poverty Law Center.
Charges include wire fraud, false statements to a federally insured bank, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.
The SPLC allegedly engaged in a massive fraud operation to deceive their donors, enrich themselves, and hide their deceptive operations from the public. They lied to their donors, vowing to dismantle violent extremist groups, and actually turned around and paid the leaders of these very extremist groups - even utilizing the funds to have these groups facilitate the commission of state and federal crimes.
That is illegal – and this is an ongoing investigation against all individuals involved.
SLPC funding the KKK has to be one of the funniest stories of the year.
There’s so few actual racist groups in the US, that the “anti-racists” are funding them just so they can protest against them.
Every right-wing commentator called these groups out at the time, they were clearly either feds or actors, a left-wing parody of what they thought the ‘far-right’ should look like. https://x.com/prof_sugon_deez/status/2046729012584583385
Thought ICE had the monopoly on racism and they weren't funded by the SPLC. But perhaps ICE might apply now.
Notice how all the anti-ICE protestors disappeared almost overnight, once the anti-Iran-war protests started?
It’s the same group of paid activists, and the cause changes every so often.
Is Soros paying them?
Amongst others. There’s a whole web of these leftist NGOs in the States.
It’s not as prevalent in the UK thankfully, but when large groups turn up to protest yesterday’s news, with professionally-made and relevant signs, and assemble where there’s a stage and a PA system, then someone is getting a large bill for the event.
I'm going to take that with a pinch of salt, but only a small one.
The question of dark money in American politics is something we don't yet see in Europe but perhaps it's coming. When they start investigating some of the Hungarian stuff, we may get a better of view of these matters. In the meantime, those betting on political outcomes may want to note the apparent financial strength of Reform. It's starting to be noticed in my small corner of UK Conservatism - and they don't like it.
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
They do not, that is rubbish. Cyclists at most can get 2 years in jail even if riding dangerously, only a manslaughter or murder conviction would get them higher, dangerous drivers who kill can get 18 years jail to life imprisonment.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
For a similar offence, cyclists are more harshly sentenced. It's irrelevant that the maximum sentence is lower.
So he was jailed immediately then for nearly 2 years after deliberately running over the cyclist, it was not suspended
Indeed, 18 months for intentionally running someone down vs 2 years for contributory negligence in a fatal collision. A lower sentence for a worse offence. What are you struggling to understand? One was deliberate intent to cause harm, the other does not involve intent to cause harm but contributed to the RTA, so akin to an unroadworthy vehicle, speeding, phone use, not cleaning your windscreen.
The only reason you have death by dangerous driving is because juries refused to convict on standard crimes like gross negligence manslaughter/culpable homicide.
Both of these charges are available for cyclists, and come with sentences considerably longer than 2 years - a life sentence. The reason you don’t have many prosecutions is because it’s so vanishingly rare for someone to behave as recklessly and cause such damage on a 10kg pushbike.
I’m against the change in the law because it will afford dangerous cyclists the same perverse clemency that motorists currently enjoy. I sincerely hope that isnt the case in Cookie’s sad circumstance, assuming a conviction.
Manslaughter is more difficult to prove than dangerous driving so that isn't an argument against dangerous cycling causing death as a law.
I don't see any particular clemency for motorists either, certainly 90% or more of those killing by dangerous driving or careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs face immediate custody
I'm intrigued that nobody guessed the second King I was talking about. Henry III was not problematic from either point of view, and Edward IV famously preferred older women (and it was his cousin he had murdered).
No, the king who married a 12 year old, murdered his nephew and raped hundreds of women was of course John.
As brilliantly portrayed by Alan Rickman in Robin Prince of thieves.
Elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell admits to AI ‘hallucinations’
Firm whose partners bill more than $2,000 per hour apologises to judge
Sullivan & Cromwell told a US federal bankruptcy court that a major filing it made in a high-profile case contained multiple “hallucinations” made by AI software.
Andrew Dietderich, the head of S&C’s restructuring practice, apologised in a letter to New York federal judge Martin Glenn on Saturday for mistakes that included misquoting the US bankruptcy code and citing cases incorrectly in a court filing made on April 9.
“We deeply regret that this has occurred,” he said in the letter.
Dietderich said the firm’s policies on the use of AI had not been followed when the document was prepared, and it was considering whether it needed to make “further enhancements” to its internal training and review processes.
The letter did not say which lawyers prepared the documents or whether they were still at the firm. S&C declined to comment.
Given the data breaches that could be involved merely by given AI access to the information to write it, any law firm using any form of AI whatsoever should be (a) struck off and (b) all of the partners involved should be reduced to work on their own intellectual level such as road sweeping.
I've been busy for most of the afternoon and evening.
Did today's debate see Kemi Badenoch make any headway or did Kinnock/Westland it again?
I only saw her speech - very solid, very analytical. No killer strike but I think this is a slow burn.
Starmer didn’t turn up
I was genuinely shocked at that. Presumably a sleight to the Speaker for granting the debate.
His first duty should be to Parliament. To simply not show up, without very good reason, is a terrible look for the PM and disrespectful to the House he leads.
I'm intrigued that nobody guessed the second King I was talking about. Henry III was not problematic from either point of view, and Edward IV famously preferred older women (and it was his cousin he had murdered).
No, the king who married a 12 year old, murdered his nephew and raped hundreds of women was of course John.
As brilliantly portrayed by Alan Rickman in Robin Prince of thieves.
Good morning, everyone.
Wasn't he the Sheriff of Nottingham? I am quite sleepy, so may be wrong.
John was an unwelcome mix of incompetence and personal flaws.
I'm intrigued that nobody guessed the second King I was talking about. Henry III was not problematic from either point of view, and Edward IV famously preferred older women (and it was his cousin he had murdered).
No, the king who married a 12 year old, murdered his nephew and raped hundreds of women was of course John.
As brilliantly portrayed by Alan Rickman in Robin Prince of thieves.
Good morning, everyone.
Wasn't he the Sheriff of Nottingham? I am quite sleepy, so may be wrong.
John was an unwelcome mix of incompetence and personal flaws.
I've been busy for most of the afternoon and evening.
Did today's debate see Kemi Badenoch make any headway or did Kinnock/Westland it again?
I only saw her speech - very solid, very analytical. No killer strike but I think this is a slow burn.
Starmer didn’t turn up
I was genuinely shocked at that. Presumably a sleight to the Speaker for granting the debate.
His first duty should be to Parliament. To simply not show up, without very good reason, is a terrible look for the PM and disrespectful to the House he leads.
It was effectively a motion of no confidence in his government. Quite bizarre behaviour really. Suggests the stress is telling.
I've been busy for most of the afternoon and evening.
Did today's debate see Kemi Badenoch make any headway or did Kinnock/Westland it again?
I only saw her speech - very solid, very analytical. No killer strike but I think this is a slow burn.
Starmer didn’t turn up
I was genuinely shocked at that. Presumably a sleight to the Speaker for granting the debate.
His first duty should be to Parliament. To simply not show up, without very good reason, is a terrible look for the PM and disrespectful to the House he leads.
It was effectively a motion of no confidence in his government. Quite bizarre behaviour really. Suggests the stress is telling.
I've been busy for most of the afternoon and evening.
Did today's debate see Kemi Badenoch make any headway or did Kinnock/Westland it again?
I only saw her speech - very solid, very analytical. No killer strike but I think this is a slow burn.
Starmer didn’t turn up
I was genuinely shocked at that. Presumably a sleight to the Speaker for granting the debate.
His first duty should be to Parliament. To simply not show up, without very good reason, is a terrible look for the PM and disrespectful to the House he leads.
It was effectively a motion of no confidence in his government. Quite bizarre behaviour really. Suggests the stress is telling.
Elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell admits to AI ‘hallucinations’
Firm whose partners bill more than $2,000 per hour apologises to judge
Sullivan & Cromwell told a US federal bankruptcy court that a major filing it made in a high-profile case contained multiple “hallucinations” made by AI software.
Andrew Dietderich, the head of S&C’s restructuring practice, apologised in a letter to New York federal judge Martin Glenn on Saturday for mistakes that included misquoting the US bankruptcy code and citing cases incorrectly in a court filing made on April 9.
“We deeply regret that this has occurred,” he said in the letter.
Dietderich said the firm’s policies on the use of AI had not been followed when the document was prepared, and it was considering whether it needed to make “further enhancements” to its internal training and review processes.
The letter did not say which lawyers prepared the documents or whether they were still at the firm. S&C declined to comment.
Given the data breaches that could be involved merely by given AI access to the information to write it, any law firm using any form of AI whatsoever should be (a) struck off and (b) all of the partners involved should be reduced to work on their own intellectual level such as road sweeping.
They all use walled gardens
The grotesque incompetence here is that multiple cases of such behaviour have leds to lawyers being struck off, prosecuted etc in various countries round the world. There’s an epidemic of this in the legal profession.
Ban AI? Nice idea, but the office juniors will be using ChatGPT on their phones - having an inhouse LLM at least provides data protection.
Though I am waiting for the scandal where a paid for “walled garden” is actually breached by the AI company.
Elite law firm Sullivan & Cromwell admits to AI ‘hallucinations’
Firm whose partners bill more than $2,000 per hour apologises to judge
Sullivan & Cromwell told a US federal bankruptcy court that a major filing it made in a high-profile case contained multiple “hallucinations” made by AI software.
Andrew Dietderich, the head of S&C’s restructuring practice, apologised in a letter to New York federal judge Martin Glenn on Saturday for mistakes that included misquoting the US bankruptcy code and citing cases incorrectly in a court filing made on April 9.
“We deeply regret that this has occurred,” he said in the letter.
Dietderich said the firm’s policies on the use of AI had not been followed when the document was prepared, and it was considering whether it needed to make “further enhancements” to its internal training and review processes.
The letter did not say which lawyers prepared the documents or whether they were still at the firm. S&C declined to comment.
Given the data breaches that could be involved merely by given AI access to the information to write it, any law firm using any form of AI whatsoever should be (a) struck off and (b) all of the partners involved should be reduced to work on their own intellectual level such as road sweeping.
They all use walled gardens
The grotesque incompetence here is that multiple cases of such behaviour have leds to lawyers being struck off, prosecuted etc in various countries round the world. There’s an epidemic of this in the legal profession.
Ban AI? Nice idea, but the office juniors will be using ChatGPT on their phones - having an inhouse LLM at least provides data protection.
Though I am waiting for the scandal where a paid for “walled garden” is actually breached by the AI company.
I use my own walled garden for quick research or where I am pursuing a line of questioning. I’d never use it without primary work in any formal document
I've been busy for most of the afternoon and evening.
Did today's debate see Kemi Badenoch make any headway or did Kinnock/Westland it again?
I only saw her speech - very solid, very analytical. No killer strike but I think this is a slow burn.
Starmer didn’t turn up
I was genuinely shocked at that. Presumably a sleight to the Speaker for granting the debate.
His first duty should be to Parliament. To simply not show up, without very good reason, is a terrible look for the PM and disrespectful to the House he leads.
It was effectively a motion of no confidence in his government. Quite bizarre behaviour really. Suggests the stress is telling.
I think that’s five days now, it’s going to be totally burned to the ground and they clearly can’t put it out. Yet the kids continue to play in the park, doesn’t seem to be any attempt at a widespread evacuation.
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
They do not, that is rubbish. Cyclists at most can get 2 years in jail even if riding dangerously, only a manslaughter or murder conviction would get them higher, dangerous drivers who kill can get 18 years jail to life imprisonment.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
For a similar offence, cyclists are more harshly sentenced. It's irrelevant that the maximum sentence is lower.
So he was jailed immediately then for nearly 2 years after deliberately running over the cyclist, it was not suspended
Indeed, 18 months for intentionally running someone down vs 2 years for contributory negligence in a fatal collision. A lower sentence for a worse offence. What are you struggling to understand? One was deliberate intent to cause harm, the other does not involve intent to cause harm but contributed to the RTA, so akin to an unroadworthy vehicle, speeding, phone use, not cleaning your windscreen.
The only reason you have death by dangerous driving is because juries refused to convict on standard crimes like gross negligence manslaughter/culpable homicide.
Both of these charges are available for cyclists, and come with sentences considerably longer than 2 years - a life sentence. The reason you don’t have many prosecutions is because it’s so vanishingly rare for someone to behave as recklessly and cause such damage on a 10kg pushbike.
I’m against the change in the law because it will afford dangerous cyclists the same perverse clemency that motorists currently enjoy. I sincerely hope that isnt the case in Cookie’s sad circumstance, assuming a conviction.
Manslaughter is more difficult to prove than dangerous driving so that isn't an argument against dangerous cycling causing death as a law.
I don't see any particular clemency for motorists either, certainly 90% or more of those killing by dangerous driving or careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs face immediate custody
I think juries should be offered the option of manslaughter and DBDD, drivers "get away with" DBDD where it should be manslaughter.
Or in the rare cases where there is intent, murder, though the CPS do seem to be a bit braver now. Doyle was charged with various GBH offences as well as dangerous driving.
Anyway it has strayed from the original point, which was victim blaming of vulnerable road users who have been killed or injured by poor, inconsiderate or dangerous driving and some people's irrational hatred of cyclists. Which given the low risk that cyclists present to them is evidence of poor reasoning ability and a low intellect.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
How many countries have dumped their own monarchy in the last 50 years? It is a tiny number. Indeed, it is two. And they are:
Nepal and Iran
How is that working out? Well? Or bad? Let's just note that both countries, by different means, are seeking a way BACK to monarchy
You forgot Barbados.
I said their OWN monarchy, deliberately excluding vile recusant regimes that have dumped Good King Chuck et al. So also Mauritius, Trinidad, etc
Dumping an imperial monarchy based overseas is a different breed of event
Although, in the case of Barbados, it's also a mistake.
I'm intrigued that nobody guessed the second King I was talking about. Henry III was not problematic from either point of view, and Edward IV famously preferred older women (and it was his cousin he had murdered).
No, the king who married a 12 year old, murdered his nephew and raped hundreds of women was of course John.
And it didn't stop there.
John was so bad he had to be restrained by Magna Carta. Which he then tried to renege on.
Thankfully TSE's absurd header is in fact just a means to show how factual statements can be misleading as Starmer has shown. Support for the monarchy remains unchanged, support for a Republic is up 1% to 24%, a level still 8% below even the 32% Corbyn Labour got in 2019 despite all of Andrew's goings on.
In fact even 18 to 24 year olds by a 7% margin prefer keeping the monarchy to a republic, despite a plurality of them voting Green.
You can rest easy, @HYUFD, the monarchy is going nowhere
1. If it can survive a monstrous wanker like Andrew it can pretty much survive anything
Why? Because
2. In an ever changing and often distressing world, people see it as a source of consoling continuity. The King is in Buck House, life goes on
This is a natural human urge, to look to the ongoing family as a comfort. The Royal Family is the National Family. We rejoice at the births and lament the deaths, and it binds us together. It has a kind of genius. And, note how many monarchies are in the top 20 nations by wealth per capita, it is about half or more, despite the supposed anachronism of the institution
It's interesting that it appears that Andrew (& possibly Harry making a run to America) did cause some damage, but only a very small amount - maybe ~5pp. Remarkably static since KCIII took over.
It suggests you'd need about another 5 Andrews to sink the Monarchy.
I think when the time comes, if it comes, it will be surprisingly sudden.
Well, I think it would have to be surprisingly sudden, because there's no sign of it happening otherwise.
The way it could have happened here is Edward VIII staying on the throne during WWII, being self-indulgent, selfish, Nazi sympathising and useless throughout, and then the monarchy being abolished by the Labour government post 1945.
Although I'm not sure even then - and they'd probably have forced an abdication in the meantime.
I'm intrigued that nobody guessed the second King I was talking about. Henry III was not problematic from either point of view, and Edward IV famously preferred older women (and it was his cousin he had murdered).
No, the king who married a 12 year old, murdered his nephew and raped hundreds of women was of course John.
As brilliantly portrayed by Alan Rickman in Robin Prince of thieves.
Good morning, everyone.
Wasn't he the Sheriff of Nottingham? I am quite sleepy, so may be wrong.
John was an unwelcome mix of incompetence and personal flaws.
I wonder whether he was. The development of England and sub-infeudation took place in his reign. The Memory of Man is deemed to be from 1189, the beginning of is reign. Here in Sedbergh he separated off the Mesne Lordship from the Chief Lordship, as he did throughout England. Surely that was a good thing which lead to the rise of Free and Common Socage, indivdualism and Englishness. He might have been a bad man, he might not have been an effective King but he did allow necessary changes to occur albeit by his minions. His brother Richard might have been a good gay man, but he was truly a lousy King
I'm intrigued that nobody guessed the second King I was talking about. Henry III was not problematic from either point of view, and Edward IV famously preferred older women (and it was his cousin he had murdered).
No, the king who married a 12 year old, murdered his nephew and raped hundreds of women was of course John.
As brilliantly portrayed by Alan Rickman in Robin Prince of thieves.
Good morning, everyone.
Wasn't he the Sheriff of Nottingham? I am quite sleepy, so may be wrong.
John was an unwelcome mix of incompetence and personal flaws.
I wonder whether he was. The development of England and sub-infeudation took place in his reign. The Memory of Man is deemed to be from 1189, the beginning of is reign. Here in Sedbergh he separated off the Mesne Lordship from the Chief Lordship, as he did throughout England. Surely that was a good thing which lead to the rise of Free and Common Socage, indivdualism and Englishness. He might have been a bad man, he might not have been an effective King but he did allow necessary changes to occur albeit by his minions. His brother Richard might have been a good gay man, but he was truly a lousy King
Shit, I was wrong there, 1189 was the beginning of the reign of Richard, not John - senior moment. But I do think sub-infeudation is much more a feature of John's reign than Richard's. Pehaps Henry III being a minor and easily led allowed for property rights to expand though his reign.
I don't reckon much to Edward I al least not in the North of England
I'm intrigued that nobody guessed the second King I was talking about. Henry III was not problematic from either point of view, and Edward IV famously preferred older women (and it was his cousin he had murdered).
No, the king who married a 12 year old, murdered his nephew and raped hundreds of women was of course John.
As brilliantly portrayed by Alan Rickman in Robin Prince of thieves.
Good morning, everyone.
Wasn't he the Sheriff of Nottingham? I am quite sleepy, so may be wrong.
John was an unwelcome mix of incompetence and personal flaws.
I wonder whether he was. The development of England and sub-infeudation took place in his reign. The Memory of Man is deemed to be from 1189, the beginning of is reign. Here in Sedbergh he separated off the Mesne Lordship from the Chief Lordship, as he did throughout England. Surely that was a good thing which lead to the rise of Free and Common Socage, indivdualism and Englishness. He might have been a bad man, he might not have been an effective King but he did allow necessary changes to occur albeit by his minions. His brother Richard might have been a good gay man, but he was truly a lousy King
John- or rather Jean- is much beloved in Bordeaux where he gave the city a strong charter, which is inscribed next to the Cathedral. Signing the Magna Carta may have been under duress, but better that than the collapse of all state authority to the rapacious barons. He was also Henry II's favorite son, which may speak ill of him...
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
They do not, that is rubbish. Cyclists at most can get 2 years in jail even if riding dangerously, only a manslaughter or murder conviction would get them higher, dangerous drivers who kill can get 18 years jail to life imprisonment.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
For a similar offence, cyclists are more harshly sentenced. It's irrelevant that the maximum sentence is lower.
So he was jailed immediately then for nearly 2 years after deliberately running over the cyclist, it was not suspended
Indeed, 18 months for intentionally running someone down vs 2 years for contributory negligence in a fatal collision. A lower sentence for a worse offence. What are you struggling to understand? One was deliberate intent to cause harm, the other does not involve intent to cause harm but contributed to the RTA, so akin to an unroadworthy vehicle, speeding, phone use, not cleaning your windscreen.
The only reason you have death by dangerous driving is because juries refused to convict on standard crimes like gross negligence manslaughter/culpable homicide.
Both of these charges are available for cyclists, and come with sentences considerably longer than 2 years - a life sentence. The reason you don’t have many prosecutions is because it’s so vanishingly rare for someone to behave as recklessly and cause such damage on a 10kg pushbike.
I’m against the change in the law because it will afford dangerous cyclists the same perverse clemency that motorists currently enjoy. I sincerely hope that isnt the case in Cookie’s sad circumstance, assuming a conviction.
Manslaughter is more difficult to prove than dangerous driving so that isn't an argument against dangerous cycling causing death as a law.
I don't see any particular clemency for motorists either, certainly 90% or more of those killing by dangerous driving or careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs face immediate custody
Yeah maybe not a good idea to wind HYUFD up, he's already having trouble reading the room.
Though not as badly as Fairliered who probably shouldn't be allowed to drive.
Actually checking back on the last thread I must apologise to HYUFD for giving him the benefit of the doubt. How dare people spend their Sunday mornings in a quiet leisurely pursuit when he's in a desperate rush to get down on his knees in front of the vicar. I have no statistics but I'm certain that cyclists have killed far fewer people than christians.
Christians who kill with intent can be prosecuted for murder or who kill by dangerous driving can be prosecuted with up to life imprisonment.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians riding dangerously at most can get 2 years custody
Cyclists at fault in RTA fatalities receive harsher sentencing than drivers, there are numerous examples of suspended or non-custodial sentences for drivers who've been at fault in fatal RTAs. Even when there is clear intent to do harm.
They do not, that is rubbish. Cyclists at most can get 2 years in jail even if riding dangerously, only a manslaughter or murder conviction would get them higher, dangerous drivers who kill can get 18 years jail to life imprisonment.
Drivers who injure with intent almost always go straight to jail
For a similar offence, cyclists are more harshly sentenced. It's irrelevant that the maximum sentence is lower.
So he was jailed immediately then for nearly 2 years after deliberately running over the cyclist, it was not suspended
Indeed, 18 months for intentionally running someone down vs 2 years for contributory negligence in a fatal collision. A lower sentence for a worse offence. What are you struggling to understand? One was deliberate intent to cause harm, the other does not involve intent to cause harm but contributed to the RTA, so akin to an unroadworthy vehicle, speeding, phone use, not cleaning your windscreen.
The only reason you have death by dangerous driving is because juries refused to convict on standard crimes like gross negligence manslaughter/culpable homicide.
Both of these charges are available for cyclists, and come with sentences considerably longer than 2 years - a life sentence. The reason you don’t have many prosecutions is because it’s so vanishingly rare for someone to behave as recklessly and cause such damage on a 10kg pushbike.
I’m against the change in the law because it will afford dangerous cyclists the same perverse clemency that motorists currently enjoy. I sincerely hope that isnt the case in Cookie’s sad circumstance, assuming a conviction.
Manslaughter is more difficult to prove than dangerous driving so that isn't an argument against dangerous cycling causing death as a law.
I don't see any particular clemency for motorists either, certainly 90% or more of those killing by dangerous driving or careless driving under the influence of drink or drugs face immediate custody
I think juries should be offered the option of manslaughter and DBDD, drivers "get away with" DBDD where it should be manslaughter.
Or in the rare cases where there is intent, murder, though the CPS do seem to be a bit braver now. Doyle was charged with various GBH offences as well as dangerous driving.
Anyway it has strayed from the original point, which was victim blaming of vulnerable road users who have been killed or injured by poor, inconsiderate or dangerous driving and some people's irrational hatred of cyclists. Which given the low risk that cyclists present to them is evidence of poor reasoning ability and a low intellect.
There is nothing low intellect about pointing out that if you choose to drive a motorbike on a main road you are 50 times more likely to be killed or injured in a crash than someone in a car, that is a statistical fact and a risk you choose to take.
Cyclists have also killed pedestrians, they are not entirely free of risk
Comments
The question of dark money in American politics is something we don't yet see in Europe but perhaps it's coming. When they start investigating some of the Hungarian stuff, we may get a better of view of these matters. In the meantime, those betting on political outcomes may want to note the apparent financial strength of Reform. It's starting to be noticed in my small corner of UK Conservatism - and they don't like it.
Starmer didn’t turn up
Next.
Wasn't he the Sheriff of Nottingham? I am quite sleepy, so may be wrong.
John was an unwelcome mix of incompetence and personal flaws.
Ban AI? Nice idea, but the office juniors will be using ChatGPT on their phones - having an inhouse LLM at least provides data protection.
Though I am waiting for the scandal where a paid for “walled garden” is actually breached by the AI company.
https://x.com/igorsushko/status/2046825521246617813
I think that’s five days now, it’s going to be totally burned to the ground and they clearly can’t put it out. Yet the kids continue to play in the park, doesn’t seem to be any attempt at a widespread evacuation.
Anyway it has strayed from the original point, which was victim blaming of vulnerable road users who have been killed or injured by poor, inconsiderate or dangerous driving and some people's irrational hatred of cyclists. Which given the low risk that cyclists present to them is evidence of poor reasoning ability and a low intellect.
NEW THREAD
John was so bad he had to be restrained by Magna Carta. Which he then tried to renege on.
Although I'm not sure even then - and they'd probably have forced an abdication in the meantime.
I don't reckon much to Edward I al least not in the North of England
Cyclists have also killed pedestrians, they are not entirely free of risk