It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
The sledgehammer attacker deserves a couple of years inside, that's close to attempted murder
I don't think anyone is defending that. It's the terror charges being added after the event and hidden from the jury. THAT stinks - but I feel we are missing something
Possibly what’s missing here is that PA decided to attack UK defence infrastructure and the full force of the state has been brought against them “pour encourager les autres”. There’s also a suspicion that the FSB was stirring the pot behind the scenes & prompting the action in the first place.
IIRC they were proscribed almost immediately after damaging those RAF aircraft? The UK state is not going to take kindly to people destroying key defence infrastructure.
Maybe the judge thinks the jury got it wrong with Corner and he's able to give him a sentence far more in line with GBH with intent compared to plain GBH. We will see.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
Is this a fraud story in the sense that the story is a fraud, like many of the things that circulate in conservative media? ("They're eating the cats...")
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
We have loads of laws against hitting people with sledgehammers or smashing shit, and I’ve happily convicted these twats of that. As this jury did.
But I’d feel physically sick if I convicted them of of an offence that judge had concealed to me I was judging them on. A gross betrayal. On a law that wasn’t even in place at the time.
It’s not fair in any sense at all.
You know how they could have avoided this fate? It's an easy one.
You’re a fool. This malpractice will be used against people like you one day.
Are sentences usually considered at the conviction phase? I thought it was just a factual finding of whether someone did something or not.
You convict on the charge, sentencing is later. The Judge will determine whether it is terrorism not the Jury,
A Defend Our Juries spokesperson said: “The public will be astonished to learn that in the British justice system a protester can now be convicted of criminal damage for disrupting an arms factory and then be sentenced as ‘terrorists’ without having been convicted of terror charges and with this having been kept secret from the jury.”
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
The sledgehammer attacker deserves a couple of years inside, that's close to attempted murder
I don't think anyone is defending that. It's the terror charges being added after the event and hidden from the jury. THAT stinks - but I feel we are missing something
Possibly what’s missing here is that PA decided to attack UK defence infrastructure and the full force of the state has been brought against them “pour encourager les autres”. There’s also a suspicion that the FSB was stirring the pot behind the scenes & prompting the action in the first place.
IIRC they were proscribed almost immediately after damaging those RAF aircraft? The UK state is not going to take kindly to people destroying key defence infrastructure.
I think this all very true. But no excuse for what has happened here.
Just bin jury trials if you’re going to do stuff like this. Wtf is the point. Give power to the Home Secretary to designate terrorists at will, drop all the pretence.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.
Personally, I loathe laws which criminalise doing [x] because of [y].
If you attack someone with a sledgehammer, you attacked someone with a sledgehammer.
If you knife someone because they're gay, then you knifed somebody.
Why does the motive for the attack have any bearing on the crime? Not only that, but it also allows the Andrew Tate's of this world to claim that straight men are being ganged up on, and it allows murdering scum to claim that they are somehow political prisoners rather than simple murdering scum.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.
I agree. Charge them as a terrorist. Put in front of court.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.
I disagree.
While I have zero sympathy for the convicted characters, this is effectively a kind of retrospective prosecution. "Terrorism" is a politically fraught definition in any event, and it's an act of arbitrary power to increase the penalty of a convicted person based on something the jury weren't even told about.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
I've missed the fraud bit. Unless Newsom has fraudulently suggested that Trump wears diapers.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.
Personally, I loathe laws which criminalise doing [x] because of [y].
If you attack someone with a sledgehammer, you attacked someone with a sledgehammer.
If you knife someone because they're gay, then you knifed somebody.
Why does the motive for the attack have any bearing on the crime? Not only that, but it also allows the Andrew Tate's of this world to claim that straight men are being ganged up on, and it allows murdering scum to claim that they are somehow political prisoners rather than simple murdering scum.
I agree to some extent. If you are being murdered in a racist attack is it worse than any other reason? Yet that is the law we have.
I have little faith in jury trials in situations like this. There seems little doubt of the actions of those in court. Yet many people sympathise with them and their cause, and hence you have the risk that someone who nearly paralyzed a police officer gets off free. There are parallels with the Bristol trial of the Colston 4. I can accept a jury acquiting them as no-one was hurt and there was much fellow feeling. But attacking people goes too far.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.
Big ‘if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from the government having CCTV in every room of your house’ vibe.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
I've missed the fraud bit. Unless Newsom has fraudulently suggested that Trump wears diapers.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.
Big ‘if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear from the government having CCTV in every room of your house’ vibe.
Everyone sits in a different place on that spectrum. Personally I think its broadly true.
On topic, will comatose Don's endorsement be worth anything by the time the primaries come round ? Or will he be out for the count ?
Trump: Drugs coming by sea meaning coming by water. A lot of people don’t know what I mean by sea. They think I mean vision. I’m talking about sea like the sea. https://x.com/Acyn/status/2053992327895486972
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
I've missed the fraud bit. Unless Newsom has fraudulently suggested that Trump wears diapers.
Giving poor people stuff is automatically fraud as far as MAGA are concerned. (You should only give stuff to rich people, preferably directly to Trump.)
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
I just Googled it.
The allegation is that California gave $20m to a non-profit to deliver nappies (diapers) to hospitals for newborns. On the board of the non-profit was a friend of Newsom's wife.
However... the diapers in question seem to have actually been delivered to the hospitals, and the sum total is a paltry $20m.
So, it's entirely possible that the non-profit got it through political connections (over another non-profit). But as the diapers got delivered, it's not clear the taxpayer has lost out in any way. It's also not clear that the friend of Newson's wife benefited in any way. (Board members of charities not normally recieving any compensation.)
Doesn’t sound anything like as bad as the allegations that Trump awarded the completely bonkers painting of the Reflecting Pool to an associate at a mind blowing cost without any bidding process happening.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.
Personally, I loathe laws which criminalise doing [x] because of [y].
If you attack someone with a sledgehammer, you attacked someone with a sledgehammer.
If you knife someone because they're gay, then you knifed somebody.
Why does the motive for the attack have any bearing on the crime? Not only that, but it also allows the Andrew Tate's of this world to claim that straight men are being ganged up on, and it allows murdering scum to claim that they are somehow political prisoners rather than simple murdering scum.
I agree to some extent. If you are being murdered in a racist attack is it worse than any other reason? Yet that is the law we have.
I have little faith in jury trials in situations like this. There seems little doubt of the actions of those in court. Yet many people sympathise with them and their cause, and hence you have the risk that someone who nearly paralyzed a police officer gets off free. There are parallels with the Bristol trial of the Colston 4. I can accept a jury acquiting them as no-one was hurt and there was much fellow feeling. But attacking people goes too far.
The guy was convicted of GBH.
I’m more concerned for the criminal damage convictions being converted into terrorism, but the principle still stands for sledgehammer man - he wasn’t convicted of terrorism either.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
Well that gives me the answer!
Newsom last week announced a programme to give 100,000 California residents 400 diapers (nappies, for the UK audience) to babies born in the State.
What’s missing is that the diapers he’s buying for the new babies of California cost the State three times what the same product costs from a supermarket, thanks to a no-bid contract with an NGO “Baby2Baby” whose CEO is on the board of his wife’s NGO, and whose board is full of Hollywood types on large salaries.
Steve Hilton’s take on it, he’s the GOP candidate to replace term-limited Newsom, and yes he’s that Steve Hilton who’s now an American citizen.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.
Personally, I loathe laws which criminalise doing [x] because of [y].
If you attack someone with a sledgehammer, you attacked someone with a sledgehammer.
If you knife someone because they're gay, then you knifed somebody.
Why does the motive for the attack have any bearing on the crime? Not only that, but it also allows the Andrew Tate's of this world to claim that straight men are being ganged up on, and it allows murdering scum to claim that they are somehow political prisoners rather than simple murdering scum.
I agree to some extent. If you are being murdered in a racist attack is it worse than any other reason? Yet that is the law we have.
I have little faith in jury trials in situations like this. There seems little doubt of the actions of those in court. Yet many people sympathise with them and their cause, and hence you have the risk that someone who nearly paralyzed a police officer gets off free. There are parallels with the Bristol trial of the Colston 4. I can accept a jury acquiting them as no-one was hurt and there was much fellow feeling. But attacking people goes too far.
The guy was convicted of GBH.
I’m more concerned for the criminal damage convictions being converted into terrorism, but the principle still stands for sledgehammer man - he wasn’t convicted of terrorism either.
But the question at hand is would he if the jury knew he might be locked away indefinitely.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
I just Googled it.
The allegation is that California gave $20m to a non-profit to deliver nappies (diapers) to hospitals for newborns. On the board of the non-profit was a friend of Newsom's wife.
However... the diapers in question seem to have actually been delivered to the hospitals, and the sum total is a paltry $20m.
So, it's entirely possible that the non-profit got it through political connections (over another non-profit). But as the diapers got delivered, it's not clear the taxpayer has lost out in any way. It's also not clear that the friend of Newson's wife benefited in any way. (Board members of charities not normally recieving any compensation.)
The $20m delivered diapers at an average cost of 50 cents. They’re 15 cents in Costco.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.
Personally, I loathe laws which criminalise doing [x] because of [y].
If you attack someone with a sledgehammer, you attacked someone with a sledgehammer.
If you knife someone because they're gay, then you knifed somebody.
Why does the motive for the attack have any bearing on the crime? Not only that, but it also allows the Andrew Tate's of this world to claim that straight men are being ganged up on, and it allows murdering scum to claim that they are somehow political prisoners rather than simple murdering scum.
I agree to some extent. If you are being murdered in a racist attack is it worse than any other reason? Yet that is the law we have.
I have little faith in jury trials in situations like this. There seems little doubt of the actions of those in court. Yet many people sympathise with them and their cause, and hence you have the risk that someone who nearly paralyzed a police officer gets off free. There are parallels with the Bristol trial of the Colston 4. I can accept a jury acquiting them as no-one was hurt and there was much fellow feeling. But attacking people goes too far.
The guy was convicted of GBH.
I’m more concerned for the criminal damage convictions being converted into terrorism, but the principle still stands for sledgehammer man - he wasn’t convicted of terrorism either.
They should have been, in my view. Violence inspired by their political beliefs fits the bill.
That's four ministers on 7hrs 10mins. Call it one every 1hr 45mins. Nobody higher than a under-secretary at the moment. If it is Wes, he's sacrificing the pawns in the first wave.
So I assume there'll be another one in time for the six-o'clock news, and another towards the end of it. Maximises publicity.
So things are looking clearer now imo. The flowchart is as follows:
Clarify the Burnham situation. Either he succeeds in becoming an MP over the summer or he doesn't.
If he does there's a leadership election between him and Streeting. If he doesn't there's a leadership election between Streeting and Miliband or Rayner.
Starmer stays until then. No resignation. But the endstate is still a new PM in time for party conference.
I think that's the bones of it.
If Streeting triggers a contest before the Burnham situation is clarified it would bring Miliband or Rayner in and he'd suffer the first mover penalty. It would also be seen as a bit tricksy and lacking in legitimacy if he won. So I don't think he'll do that.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.
Personally, I loathe laws which criminalise doing [x] because of [y].
If you attack someone with a sledgehammer, you attacked someone with a sledgehammer.
If you knife someone because they're gay, then you knifed somebody.
Why does the motive for the attack have any bearing on the crime? Not only that, but it also allows the Andrew Tate's of this world to claim that straight men are being ganged up on, and it allows murdering scum to claim that they are somehow political prisoners rather than simple murdering scum.
I agree to some extent. If you are being murdered in a racist attack is it worse than any other reason? Yet that is the law we have.
I have little faith in jury trials in situations like this. There seems little doubt of the actions of those in court. Yet many people sympathise with them and their cause, and hence you have the risk that someone who nearly paralyzed a police officer gets off free. There are parallels with the Bristol trial of the Colston 4. I can accept a jury acquiting them as no-one was hurt and there was much fellow feeling. But attacking people goes too far.
The guy was convicted of GBH.
I’m more concerned for the criminal damage convictions being converted into terrorism, but the principle still stands for sledgehammer man - he wasn’t convicted of terrorism either.
They should have been, in my view. Violence inspired by their political beliefs fits the bill.
Ffs. That’s besides the point. Do you think people should be sentenced for terrorism having never been convicted of it?
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
I just Googled it.
The allegation is that California gave $20m to a non-profit to deliver nappies (diapers) to hospitals for newborns. On the board of the non-profit was a friend of Newsom's wife.
However... the diapers in question seem to have actually been delivered to the hospitals, and the sum total is a paltry $20m.
So, it's entirely possible that the non-profit got it through political connections (over another non-profit). But as the diapers got delivered, it's not clear the taxpayer has lost out in any way. It's also not clear that the friend of Newson's wife benefited in any way. (Board members of charities not normally recieving any compensation.)
The $20m delivered diapers at an average cost of 50 cents. They’re 15 cents in Costco.
The crime family have grifted hundreds of millions of dollars so if the GOP are trying to make political capital over this then they really a a bunch of hypocrites.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
I'm still backing Umunna.
Bring back Lembit Opik - that's what I say.
Not sure he'd fit well in modern Labour; he's been on a Journey.
The vast majority of those asking Starmer to resign are Streeting supporters . It’s clear what’s happening . Burnham supporters would be stupid now to try and push Starmer out quickly .
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.
Personally, I loathe laws which criminalise doing [x] because of [y].
If you attack someone with a sledgehammer, you attacked someone with a sledgehammer.
If you knife someone because they're gay, then you knifed somebody.
Why does the motive for the attack have any bearing on the crime? Not only that, but it also allows the Andrew Tate's of this world to claim that straight men are being ganged up on, and it allows murdering scum to claim that they are somehow political prisoners rather than simple murdering scum.
I agree to some extent. If you are being murdered in a racist attack is it worse than any other reason? Yet that is the law we have.
I have little faith in jury trials in situations like this. There seems little doubt of the actions of those in court. Yet many people sympathise with them and their cause, and hence you have the risk that someone who nearly paralyzed a police officer gets off free. There are parallels with the Bristol trial of the Colston 4. I can accept a jury acquiting them as no-one was hurt and there was much fellow feeling. But attacking people goes too far.
The guy was convicted of GBH.
I’m more concerned for the criminal damage convictions being converted into terrorism, but the principle still stands for sledgehammer man - he wasn’t convicted of terrorism either.
Sentencing and convictions are different are they not?
Under the law he was convicted.
Also under the law what he was convicted of was terrorism.
IANAL but as far as I am aware aggravating and mitigating factors for sentencing purposes are determined by the Judge, not the Jury.
Is there any difference here between the Judge determining terrorism to be an aggravating factor and any other aggravating factors Judges determine in any other case?
You can believe what you want and I will defend your right to do so no matter how much I dislike what you are saying. But attacking people based on your political beliefs? That is terrorism.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
Well that gives me the answer!
Newsom last week announced a programme to give 100,000 California residents 400 diapers (nappies, for the UK audience) to babies born in the State.
What’s missing is that the diapers he’s buying for the new babies of California cost the State three times what the same product costs from a supermarket, thanks to a no-bid contract with an NGO “Baby2Baby” whose CEO is on the board of his wife’s NGO, and whose board is full of Hollywood types on large salaries.
Steve Hilton’s take on it, he’s the GOP candidate to replace term-limited Newsom, and yes he’s that Steve Hilton who’s now an American citizen.
Given how Donald Trump is monetising the presidency it's surely not possible for a GOP candidate to run an anti-corruption message. Least not with a straight face.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
I've missed the fraud bit. Unless Newsom has fraudulently suggested that Trump wears diapers.
Steve Hilton has claimed that it costs 50 cents per diaper, compared to "one hundredth that at Costco".
And I'm sure he's right that program will have cost much more than Costco - not least because one involves distributing diapers to peoples' homes, and the other to massive warehouses.
But I think his math is off. Diapers cost $100/month on average in the US (according to Claude). This program provides you with diapers for your first month of being a parent. There are approximartely 400,000 births per year in California. So, that means that the cost to first month parents is about $40m/year.
This program will cost $7m/year.
You know what? I bet you Costco could have delivered this program for $3-4m/year.
But it's very hard to get a massive fraud scandal out of a program costing the California taxpayer $7m/year, and where diapers do actually seem to have been delievered.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
Well that gives me the answer!
Newsom last week announced a programme to give 100,000 California residents 400 diapers (nappies, for the UK audience) to babies born in the State.
What’s missing is that the diapers he’s buying for the new babies of California cost the State three times what the same product costs from a supermarket, thanks to a no-bid contract with an NGO “Baby2Baby” whose CEO is on the board of his wife’s NGO, and whose board is full of Hollywood types on large salaries.
Steve Hilton’s take on it, he’s the GOP candidate to replace term-limited Newsom, and yes he’s that Steve Hilton who’s now an American citizen.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
I just Googled it.
The allegation is that California gave $20m to a non-profit to deliver nappies (diapers) to hospitals for newborns. On the board of the non-profit was a friend of Newsom's wife.
However... the diapers in question seem to have actually been delivered to the hospitals, and the sum total is a paltry $20m.
So, it's entirely possible that the non-profit got it through political connections (over another non-profit). But as the diapers got delivered, it's not clear the taxpayer has lost out in any way. It's also not clear that the friend of Newson's wife benefited in any way. (Board members of charities not normally recieving any compensation.)
The $20m delivered diapers at an average cost of 50 cents. They’re 15 cents in Costco.
Are the Costco ones 15/50 as good? You do know that not all nappies are the same?
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
We have loads of laws against hitting people with sledgehammers or smashing shit, and I’ve happily convicted these twats of that. As this jury did.
But I’d feel physically sick if I convicted them of of an offence that judge had concealed to me I was judging them on. A gross betrayal. On a law that wasn’t even in place at the time.
It’s not fair in any sense at all.
You know how they could have avoided this fate? It's an easy one.
You’re a fool. This malpractice will be used against people like you one day.
Are sentences usually considered at the conviction phase? I thought it was just a factual finding of whether someone did something or not.
Usually (!) the jury decides on whether the defendant is guilty / not guilty of the offences charged & the judge then decides the sentence, which can then include any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. This does seem an extraordinary piece of judicial legerdemain that sought to conceal the full charge from the jury.
It seems Blair’s Terrorism Act 2000 is being used in exactly the authoritarian ways that the protestors against it said it would be. Even within the terms of that Act the judge appears to have stretched Section 1(1)b to breaking point by claiming that the actions of the convicted fell under the terms of the Act by virtue of being intended to influence the Israeli government. That paragraph doesn’t require the defendants to have been members of a proscribed organisation at the time of the offence, which is why the judge is relying on it & not later sections of the Act.
The PA criminals can go to prison for their mis-deeds, but this legal device ought not to stand.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
I just Googled it.
The allegation is that California gave $20m to a non-profit to deliver nappies (diapers) to hospitals for newborns. On the board of the non-profit was a friend of Newsom's wife.
However... the diapers in question seem to have actually been delivered to the hospitals, and the sum total is a paltry $20m.
So, it's entirely possible that the non-profit got it through political connections (over another non-profit). But as the diapers got delivered, it's not clear the taxpayer has lost out in any way. It's also not clear that the friend of Newson's wife benefited in any way. (Board members of charities not normally recieving any compensation.)
The $20m delivered diapers at an average cost of 50 cents. They’re 15 cents in Costco.
Are the Costco ones 15/50 as good? You do know that not all nappies are the same?
I remember buying some in Cyprus when the twins were small. Any weight added to the nappy and the nappy would 45 seconds later have fallen to the floor...
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
I'm still backing Umunna.
Bring back Lembit Opik - that's what I say.
Not sure he'd fit well in modern Labour; he's been on a Journey.
Former Lib Dem gone rogue? Unprecedented!! Reform member and chair of parliament for a lunar settlement - what do GB news lace their money with?
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
This is the sledgehammer one?
These people are horrible - especially the sledgehammer dude - but I simply don’t understand how they can be convicted of terror charges if
1. PA wasn’t a terrorist group at the time and
2. The jury wasn’t told of the terror charges???
This is so dodgy I suspect the reporting is faulty
They were convicted of criminal damage. Reportedly, the court (ie judges) will decide ("subject to criminal burden of proof"), whether they should be sentenced on the basis of a terrorism tariff.
Which doesn't sound much better than your formulation, but is at least a process of sorts.
This feels a bit chicken and egg to me - Palestine Action became a proscribed organisation BECAUSE of what these 'activists' did. So while it might not have been actions as a Terrorist Organisation at the time, what they did has been classed as terrorism.
Rightly, in my view.
Quite simply taking a sledgehammer and attacking someone with it with no regard for the impact on their life because of your political views fits very well the definition of terrorism.
I've never swung a sledgehammer at someone because I didn't like what another country did, and I've never been sent to prison as a terrorist.
Simples.
Personally, I loathe laws which criminalise doing [x] because of [y].
If you attack someone with a sledgehammer, you attacked someone with a sledgehammer.
If you knife someone because they're gay, then you knifed somebody.
Why does the motive for the attack have any bearing on the crime? Not only that, but it also allows the Andrew Tate's of this world to claim that straight men are being ganged up on, and it allows murdering scum to claim that they are somehow political prisoners rather than simple murdering scum.
I agree to some extent. If you are being murdered in a racist attack is it worse than any other reason? Yet that is the law we have.
I have little faith in jury trials in situations like this. There seems little doubt of the actions of those in court. Yet many people sympathise with them and their cause, and hence you have the risk that someone who nearly paralyzed a police officer gets off free. There are parallels with the Bristol trial of the Colston 4. I can accept a jury acquiting them as no-one was hurt and there was much fellow feeling. But attacking people goes too far.
The guy was convicted of GBH.
I’m more concerned for the criminal damage convictions being converted into terrorism, but the principle still stands for sledgehammer man - he wasn’t convicted of terrorism either.
Sentencing and convictions are different are they not?
Under the law he was convicted.
Also under the law what he was convicted of was terrorism.
IANAL but as far as I am aware aggravating and mitigating factors for sentencing purposes are determined by the Judge, not the Jury.
Is there any difference here between the Judge determining terrorism to be an aggravating factor and any other aggravating factors Judges determine in any other case?
You can believe what you want and I will defend your right to do so no matter how much I dislike what you are saying. But attacking people based on your political beliefs? That is terrorism.
Wikipedia says: "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims."
That's not the same as your definition here. You are expanding the term.
Tick tock on getting a resolution to the Iranian conflict such that the oil starts flowing again.
I don't know exactly what the lead time from that to consumers noticing lower fuel prices given system lags, but it won't be immediate and there's less than 6 months' left to play with for mid terms.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
Well that gives me the answer!
Newsom last week announced a programme to give 100,000 California residents 400 diapers (nappies, for the UK audience) to babies born in the State.
What’s missing is that the diapers he’s buying for the new babies of California cost the State three times what the same product costs from a supermarket, thanks to a no-bid contract with an NGO “Baby2Baby” whose CEO is on the board of his wife’s NGO, and whose board is full of Hollywood types on large salaries.
Steve Hilton’s take on it, he’s the GOP candidate to replace term-limited Newsom, and yes he’s that Steve Hilton who’s now an American citizen.
It's all a bit strange. Why would all these PPSs, and a handful of junior ministers, resign if no leadership contest is incoming? Notably, they're not all Streeting's people. Also notably, nobody's heard of any of them with the exception of Jess Phillips. I reckon they'll be pretty pissed off if nothing happens imminently - they'll have been hung out to dry by somebody. Which makes me think somebody, presumably Streeting, will make a move this evening.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
So… do you disagree with what had happened here? On the principles?
This is from a Burnham ally: Burnham in meetings in London
Regarding a leadership run: Burnham "has a route but isn't prepared to trigger, the power to keep this controlled is with the PM. Can't be reckless"
OK, so he doesn't have a route.
Burnham needs 1 of about 40 MPs (i.e. those in a seat where Labour has a chance of winning) to stand aside - and none of those MPs are willing to do so because why would they.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
I just Googled it.
The allegation is that California gave $20m to a non-profit to deliver nappies (diapers) to hospitals for newborns. On the board of the non-profit was a friend of Newsom's wife.
However... the diapers in question seem to have actually been delivered to the hospitals, and the sum total is a paltry $20m.
So, it's entirely possible that the non-profit got it through political connections (over another non-profit). But as the diapers got delivered, it's not clear the taxpayer has lost out in any way. It's also not clear that the friend of Newson's wife benefited in any way. (Board members of charities not normally recieving any compensation.)
The $20m delivered diapers at an average cost of 50 cents. They’re 15 cents in Costco.
Are the Costco ones 15/50 as good? You do know that not all nappies are the same?
The Costco ones will be fine, they may even be good.
The big difference in the pricing is around distribution. If you want to get your diapers from Costco, you will need to (a) pay up for the privelege of being a member of Costco, and (b) turn up at their warehouse, which is likely far from where the poorest Californians live.
If Costco had an obligation to deliver diapers to the anyone in the State on a schedule, then it would cost them a lot more than 15 cents.
It's all a bit strange. Why would all these PPSs, and a handful of junior ministers, resign if no leadership contest is incoming? Notably, they're not all Streeting's people. Also notably, nobody's heard of any of them with the exception of Jess Phillips. I reckon they'll be pretty pissed off if nothing happens imminently - they'll have been hung out to dry by somebody. Which makes me think somebody, presumably Streeting, will make a move this evening.
It all looks incredibly self indulgent and not helping things at all if not.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
How would you feel if you were being whacked with a sledge hammer in your spine? These criminals believe that their actions are justified and thus until that changes you can expect them to do it again. Seems fair to me.
We have loads of laws against hitting people with sledgehammers or smashing shit, and I’ve happily convicted these twats of that. As this jury did.
But I’d feel physically sick if I convicted them of of an offence that judge had concealed to me I was judging them on. A gross betrayal. On a law that wasn’t even in place at the time.
It’s not fair in any sense at all.
You know how they could have avoided this fate? It's an easy one.
You’re a fool. This malpractice will be used against people like you one day.
Are sentences usually considered at the conviction phase? I thought it was just a factual finding of whether someone did something or not.
Usually (!) the jury decides on whether the defendant is guilty / not guilty of the offences charged & the judge then decides the sentence, which can then include any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. This does seem an extraordinary piece of judicial legerdemain that sought to conceal the full charge from the jury.
It seems Blair’s Terrorism Act 2000 is being used in exactly the authoritarian ways that the protestors against it said it would be. Even within the terms of that Act the judge appears to have stretched Section 1(1)b to breaking point by claiming that the actions of the convicted fell under the terms of the Act by virtue of being intended to influence the Israeli government. That paragraph doesn’t require the defendants to have been members of a proscribed organisation at the time of the offence, which is why the judge is relying on it & not later sections of the Act.
The PA criminals can go to prison for their mis-deeds, but this legal device ought not to stand.
If I understand that story he's agreed it's arguable and will rule on it later, presumably after a mini trial of the issue.
It's all a bit strange. Why would all these PPSs, and a handful of junior ministers, resign if no leadership contest is incoming? Notably, they're not all Streeting's people. Also notably, nobody's heard of any of them with the exception of Jess Phillips. I reckon they'll be pretty pissed off if nothing happens imminently - they'll have been hung out to dry by somebody. Which makes me think somebody, presumably Streeting, will make a move this evening.
Mass resignations to no effect happened fairly regularly at the tail end of the last Labour government.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
Well that gives me the answer!
Newsom last week announced a programme to give 100,000 California residents 400 diapers (nappies, for the UK audience) to babies born in the State.
What’s missing is that the diapers he’s buying for the new babies of California cost the State three times what the same product costs from a supermarket, thanks to a no-bid contract with an NGO “Baby2Baby” whose CEO is on the board of his wife’s NGO, and whose board is full of Hollywood types on large salaries.
Steve Hilton’s take on it, he’s the GOP candidate to replace term-limited Newsom, and yes he’s that Steve Hilton who’s now an American citizen.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
I just Googled it.
The allegation is that California gave $20m to a non-profit to deliver nappies (diapers) to hospitals for newborns. On the board of the non-profit was a friend of Newsom's wife.
However... the diapers in question seem to have actually been delivered to the hospitals, and the sum total is a paltry $20m.
So, it's entirely possible that the non-profit got it through political connections (over another non-profit). But as the diapers got delivered, it's not clear the taxpayer has lost out in any way. It's also not clear that the friend of Newson's wife benefited in any way. (Board members of charities not normally recieving any compensation.)
The $20m delivered diapers at an average cost of 50 cents. They’re 15 cents in Costco.
Are the Costco ones 15/50 as good? You do know that not all nappies are the same?
The Costco ones will be fine, they may even be good.
The big difference in the pricing is around distribution. If you want to get your diapers from Costco, you will need to (a) pay up for the privelege of being a member of Costco, and (b) turn up at their warehouse, which is likely far from where the poorest Californians live.
If Costco had an obligation to deliver diapers to the anyone in the State on a schedule, then it would cost them a lot more than 15 cents.
Amazon will deliver them for pretty much the same price.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
Well that gives me the answer!
Newsom last week announced a programme to give 100,000 California residents 400 diapers (nappies, for the UK audience) to babies born in the State.
What’s missing is that the diapers he’s buying for the new babies of California cost the State three times what the same product costs from a supermarket, thanks to a no-bid contract with an NGO “Baby2Baby” whose CEO is on the board of his wife’s NGO, and whose board is full of Hollywood types on large salaries.
Steve Hilton’s take on it, he’s the GOP candidate to replace term-limited Newsom, and yes he’s that Steve Hilton who’s now an American citizen.
I know lots of people -in both the UK and the US- who are on charity boards of various flavours. None of them are paid for being on the boards, they do it for the prestige.
Now, it is possible to get rich out of charities and out of defrauding the tax payer -like Aimee Bock, who may well have stolen tens of millions- but board members turn up once a quarter, and do fundraising things, and lend their name and their credibility.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
So… do you disagree with what had happened here? On the principles?
I do not disagree with Judges following the law when they do sentencing.
I would support a change in the law.
Unless or until the law changes, the Judge has implemented the law as they should.
There is no "but I agree with their cause" exemption to the law that precludes terrorism from being an aggravating factor here.
What I do t get about Wes Streeting is how he thinks he’s in with a chance. Whilst I suppose, anything’s technically possible if he somehow gets a good start and demonstrates exceptional riz, he’s unlikely. I just can’t see Labour members warming to him, however good he is. IMO he’d better off positioning himself as a potential CoE. It will be interesting to see what happens.
It's all a bit strange. Why would all these PPSs, and a handful of junior ministers, resign if no leadership contest is incoming? Notably, they're not all Streeting's people. Also notably, nobody's heard of any of them with the exception of Jess Phillips. I reckon they'll be pretty pissed off if nothing happens imminently - they'll have been hung out to dry by somebody. Which makes me think somebody, presumably Streeting, will make a move this evening.
Mass resignations to no effect happened fairly regularly at the tail end of the last Labour government.
If nothing does come of this, then when do the defections start? Unlike the last days of Brown, there are the NuGreens for some of them to decamp to.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
I'm still backing Umunna.
Bring back Lembit Opik - that's what I say.
Not sure he'd fit well in modern Labour; he's been on a Journey.
Just looked at his wikipedia page. Sheesh. I'm crossing him off my potential PM list. So I guess that just leaves Umunna or bringing Liz Truss back for a laugh.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
I just Googled it.
The allegation is that California gave $20m to a non-profit to deliver nappies (diapers) to hospitals for newborns. On the board of the non-profit was a friend of Newsom's wife.
However... the diapers in question seem to have actually been delivered to the hospitals, and the sum total is a paltry $20m.
So, it's entirely possible that the non-profit got it through political connections (over another non-profit). But as the diapers got delivered, it's not clear the taxpayer has lost out in any way. It's also not clear that the friend of Newson's wife benefited in any way. (Board members of charities not normally recieving any compensation.)
But in the USA everything has to be squeaky-clean. The President has said so.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
I just Googled it.
The allegation is that California gave $20m to a non-profit to deliver nappies (diapers) to hospitals for newborns. On the board of the non-profit was a friend of Newsom's wife.
However... the diapers in question seem to have actually been delivered to the hospitals, and the sum total is a paltry $20m.
So, it's entirely possible that the non-profit got it through political connections (over another non-profit). But as the diapers got delivered, it's not clear the taxpayer has lost out in any way. It's also not clear that the friend of Newson's wife benefited in any way. (Board members of charities not normally recieving any compensation.)
The $20m delivered diapers at an average cost of 50 cents. They’re 15 cents in Costco.
Are the Costco ones 15/50 as good? You do know that not all nappies are the same?
The Costco ones will be fine, they may even be good.
The big difference in the pricing is around distribution. If you want to get your diapers from Costco, you will need to (a) pay up for the privelege of being a member of Costco, and (b) turn up at their warehouse, which is likely far from where the poorest Californians live.
If Costco had an obligation to deliver diapers to the anyone in the State on a schedule, then it would cost them a lot more than 15 cents.
Amazon will deliver them for pretty much the same price.
Is that true?
I just typed diapers in Amazon search, and got the following:
That's 25 cents, not 15 cents, and that's the price for me with my Prime membership (i.e. free delivery) in a wealthy part of Los Angeles.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Amazon could probably do this for 40 cents all in. Because it's a highly efficient private company. And the State probably would have been better off contracting with Amazon.
But these diapers are going to be going to people who are poor, and who don't have Costco or Amazon Prime memberships. Many of them are going to live in places that are a long way from the nearest distribution center.
Sometimes I am a bit thick. Often maybe. But I had not quite realised that Angela Rayner’s statement that the PM should allow Andy Burnham back into parliament was not a statement about Labour Party democracy. It was Rayner saying she would back Burnham as and when he runs to be Labour leader.
Or so I am reliably told, to coin the cliché.
In other words, she would not be a candidate in a leadership contest that included Burnham as a candidate.
That has been said to me explicitly, and feels important.
So does that mean she has abandoned all ambitions to be prime minister?
Not quite.
Her view is that there must be a soft-left dog in any leadership race. And if that race was triggered by Wes Streeting today or in coming days, while Burnham is still outside the Commons, she would feel it was her duty to be a contestant - unless, that is, another soft-left MP, such as Ed Miliband, were to go for it.
In a nutshell, she seems to have decided her preferred role is to be the maker of the king or queen, not the monarch herself. Unless duty calls.
Chaos under Ed Miliband does seem to be the safest option.
More importantly, is it the end of the road for Streeting?
I'm still backing Umunna.
Bring back Lembit Opik - that's what I say.
Not sure he'd fit well in modern Labour; he's been on a Journey.
Just looked at his wikipedia page. Sheesh. I'm crossing him off my potential PM list. So I guess that just leaves Umunna or bringing Liz Truss back for a laugh.
Why not the lettuce? It's been long enough that the lettuce could have rotted and resurrected itself as a new lettuce.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
So… do you disagree with what had happened here? On the principles?
I do not disagree with Judges following the law when they do sentencing.
I would support a change in the law.
Unless or until the law changes, the Judge has implemented the law as they should.
There is no "but I agree with their cause" exemption to the law that precludes terrorism from being an aggravating factor here.
Has the judge implemented the law as they should? Their interpretation of the law seems to have surprised many.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
Well that gives me the answer!
Newsom last week announced a programme to give 100,000 California residents 400 diapers (nappies, for the UK audience) to babies born in the State.
What’s missing is that the diapers he’s buying for the new babies of California cost the State three times what the same product costs from a supermarket, thanks to a no-bid contract with an NGO “Baby2Baby” whose CEO is on the board of his wife’s NGO, and whose board is full of Hollywood types on large salaries.
Steve Hilton’s take on it, he’s the GOP candidate to replace term-limited Newsom, and yes he’s that Steve Hilton who’s now an American citizen.
I know lots of people -in both the UK and the US- who are on charity boards of various flavours. None of them are paid for being on the boards, they do it for the prestige.
Now, it is possible to get rich out of charities and out of defrauding the tax payer -like Aimee Bock, who may well have stolen tens of millions- but board members turn up once a quarter, and do fundraising things, and lend their name and their credibility.
So why did Newsom give a no-bid contract to a bunch of his wife’s friends, for three times the cost of the same product from a supermarket, that’s made overseas and not in the US?
Is it that he’s totally shameless now that he’s term-limited, and just wanted a photo opportunity, or is it that he’s hoping the husbands of all the women in this photo-op group donate big bucks to his presidential campaign?
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
"Influencing a foreign government" should not be terrorism.
Attempting to overthrow an authoritarian regime should not be terrorism.
On the other hand, criminal damage to a UK military installation should be treason
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
Well that gives me the answer!
Newsom last week announced a programme to give 100,000 California residents 400 diapers (nappies, for the UK audience) to babies born in the State.
What’s missing is that the diapers he’s buying for the new babies of California cost the State three times what the same product costs from a supermarket, thanks to a no-bid contract with an NGO “Baby2Baby” whose CEO is on the board of his wife’s NGO, and whose board is full of Hollywood types on large salaries.
Steve Hilton’s take on it, he’s the GOP candidate to replace term-limited Newsom, and yes he’s that Steve Hilton who’s now an American citizen.
I know lots of people -in both the UK and the US- who are on charity boards of various flavours. None of them are paid for being on the boards, they do it for the prestige.
Now, it is possible to get rich out of charities and out of defrauding the tax payer -like Aimee Bock, who may well have stolen tens of millions- but board members turn up once a quarter, and do fundraising things, and lend their name and their credibility.
So why did Newsom give a no-big contract to a bunch of his wife’s friends, for three times the cost of the same product from a supermarket, that’s made overseas and not in the US?
Is it that he’s totally shameless now that he’s term-limited, and just wanted a photo opportunity, or is it that he’s hoping the husbands of all the women in this photo-op group donate big bucks to his presidential campaign?
Never attribute to malice, that which might be otherwise explained by incompetence.
A charismatic charity lady will have met with a bunch of lawmakers, and described a real problem: poorer women with newborns, unable to afford diapers.
For just $7m/year the charity will be able to source and deliver diapers for the first month to this group.
Now, should the lawmakers have put it out to tender? Sure they should.
But governments don't put small programs (and $7m/year is tiny) out to contract all the time.
What I do t get about Wes Streeting is how he thinks he’s in with a chance. Whilst I suppose, anything’s technically possible if he somehow gets a good start and demonstrates exceptional riz, he’s unlikely. I just can’t see Labour members warming to him, however good he is. IMO he’d better off positioning himself as a potential CoE. It will be interesting to see what happens.
He is the best candidate for my book, does that count for nothing?
Allies of former deputy prime minister Angela Rayner tell the BBC she is prepared to run for leader if required. But, they say, she is not advocating for an immediate contest, and is open to supporting other candidates.
This is no time for a novice, so it can't be someone untested at the highest level, but we also need a fresh face and a clean break with the past.
How to square the circle? The stand out candidate to be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the greatest living Welsh politician, Julia Gillard.
It's all a bit strange. Why would all these PPSs, and a handful of junior ministers, resign if no leadership contest is incoming? Notably, they're not all Streeting's people. Also notably, nobody's heard of any of them with the exception of Jess Phillips. I reckon they'll be pretty pissed off if nothing happens imminently - they'll have been hung out to dry by somebody. Which makes me think somebody, presumably Streeting, will make a move this evening.
Presumably they think their actions will help to precipitate a contest. They may be thinking of nothing more than their survival as MPs beyond the next election. In their position I know I would be.
I think this business of the difficulty being that they aren't "coalescing" behind a single candidate is a bit of a red herring. If only 81 of them can coalesce behind Joe (or Josephine) Bloggs, then there will be a contest and there will still be 320 left for any other candidate to find their supporters from. Surely not too hard for anyone who thinks s/he can win the election.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
What Newsom diapers fraud story?
Well that gives me the answer!
Newsom last week announced a programme to give 100,000 California residents 400 diapers (nappies, for the UK audience) to babies born in the State.
What’s missing is that the diapers he’s buying for the new babies of California cost the State three times what the same product costs from a supermarket, thanks to a no-bid contract with an NGO “Baby2Baby” whose CEO is on the board of his wife’s NGO, and whose board is full of Hollywood types on large salaries.
Steve Hilton’s take on it, he’s the GOP candidate to replace term-limited Newsom, and yes he’s that Steve Hilton who’s now an American citizen.
I know lots of people -in both the UK and the US- who are on charity boards of various flavours. None of them are paid for being on the boards, they do it for the prestige.
Now, it is possible to get rich out of charities and out of defrauding the tax payer -like Aimee Bock, who may well have stolen tens of millions- but board members turn up once a quarter, and do fundraising things, and lend their name and their credibility.
So why did Newsom give a no-big contract to a bunch of his wife’s friends, for three times the cost of the same product from a supermarket, that’s made overseas and not in the US?
Is it that he’s totally shameless now that he’s term-limited, and just wanted a photo opportunity, or is it that he’s hoping the husbands of all the women in this photo-op group donate big bucks to his presidential campaign?
Never attribute to malice, that which might be otherwise explained by incompetence.
A charismatic charity lady will have met with a bunch of lawmakers, and described a real problem: poorer women with newborns, unable to afford diapers.
For just $7m/year the charity will be able to source and deliver diapers for the first month to this group.
Now, should the lawmakers have put it out to tender? Sure they should.
But governments don't put small programs (and $7m/year is tiny) out to contract all the time.
Note, the diapers are given to parents at the hospital, not delivered to their homes. They get slightly more than a month's worth: they get 400, which is about 44 days worth. The NGO say they are making them for 80% less than the retail price. There is $12.5 million assigned in next year's budget, with the scheme expanding to more hospitals.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
On the face of it these people were sentenced for a crime they weren't convicted of in court. If so, I would think they would have a strong case under human rights law, including if it gets that far a visit to Strasbourg.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
"Influencing a foreign government" should not be terrorism.
Attempting to overthrow an authoritarian regime should not be terrorism.
On the other hand, criminal damage to a UK military installation should be treason
Is there an authoritarian regime in this country?
Taking a sledgehammer to someone in this country, in order to further a political goal should be terrorism.
Whether it is a group or a lone wolf, and whatever the cause.
It is the criminal damage only element that I would remove from terrorism, but across the board. As it stands, its still the law.
Politically-motivated violence against people in the UK is and should remain terrorism.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
On the face of it these people were sentenced for a crime they weren't convicted of in court. If so, I would think they would have a strong case under human rights law, including if it gets that far a visit to Strasbourg.
No, they were sentenced for a crime they were convicted of.
Aggravating factors don't need convictions, do they?
Abolish the whole concept of aggravating factors if you dislike it. Don't cherrypick when they can be applied.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
I just Googled it.
The allegation is that California gave $20m to a non-profit to deliver nappies (diapers) to hospitals for newborns. On the board of the non-profit was a friend of Newsom's wife.
However... the diapers in question seem to have actually been delivered to the hospitals, and the sum total is a paltry $20m.
So, it's entirely possible that the non-profit got it through political connections (over another non-profit). But as the diapers got delivered, it's not clear the taxpayer has lost out in any way. It's also not clear that the friend of Newson's wife benefited in any way. (Board members of charities not normally recieving any compensation.)
But in the USA everything has to be squeaky-clean. The President has said so.
I can understand MAGA being sensitive about diapers.
It seems you can still get an indeterminant sentence in the UK "The parole board would also have to be satisfied that the defendants were reformed and had rescinded their beliefs."
The court conceals from the jury that they will be sentenced as terrorists - possible life in prison. Secures conviction under false pretences because they know no jury would convict under such a stupid definition. The crime was committed before PA were proscribed, but they are to be sentenced as if they had been already.
Only freed when… they don’t think Palestine should be free? Mental.
Difficult to describe how disgraceful this is. If I were one of those jurors I’d be protesting outside the court now.
Their actions, which they were convicted of, were terrorist in nature whether the group was proscribed or not.
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
20mph speed limits are the law of the land.
Not around here thank goodness.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
Nah, your standard response to something you can’t defend is to parrot “it’s the law”.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
No, its not.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
"Influencing a foreign government" should not be terrorism.
Attempting to overthrow an authoritarian regime should not be terrorism.
On the other hand, criminal damage to a UK military installation should be treason
Is there an authoritarian regime in this country?
Taking a sledgehammer to someone in this country, in order to further a political goal should be terrorism.
Whether it is a group or a lone wolf, and whatever the cause.
It is the criminal damage only element that I would remove from terrorism, but across the board. As it stands, its still the law.
Politically-motivated violence against people in the UK is and should remain terrorism.
You are still using your own definition of terrorism that isn't in the legislation concerned. Terrorism is violence to influence a political outcome, and the judge is saying that they were trying to influence the Israeli government, which seems a little tenuous.
On topic, I think the Republican contest is between Vance, Rubio, and DeSantis. Of the three I’d say Rubio should be the favorite over Vance, but polling of GOP voters suggests the opposite which is reflective of the markets. Rubio is IMHO value, he’s doing a good job at State and will shorten once the primaries start.
On the Dem side, I really can’t imagine they’ll actually go for either Newsom or AOC, so this one is a lay-the-favourites market in what’s a name recognition contest at this point.
My thoughts:
AOC has repeatedly hinted that she's going for Schumer's New York Senate seat, so she's probably out anyway (bar events, obviously).
I think Harris is also a clear sell: she performed poorly last time the Democrats had competitive primaries, she lost to Trump, and pretty much all her previous financial backers have deserted her. She should have run for California Governor.
Newsom would be a foolish pick for the Dems. But he's also been by far the most visible and effective of the (as named by Nate Silver) Resistance Dems. He's probably overpriced, but unlike AOC and Harris, he does have a viable path to the nomination.
Is the Newsom diapers fraud story actually cutting through in California, in the same way it’s cutting through in conservative media?
I just Googled it.
The allegation is that California gave $20m to a non-profit to deliver nappies (diapers) to hospitals for newborns. On the board of the non-profit was a friend of Newsom's wife.
However... the diapers in question seem to have actually been delivered to the hospitals, and the sum total is a paltry $20m.
So, it's entirely possible that the non-profit got it through political connections (over another non-profit). But as the diapers got delivered, it's not clear the taxpayer has lost out in any way. It's also not clear that the friend of Newson's wife benefited in any way. (Board members of charities not normally recieving any compensation.)
The $20m delivered diapers at an average cost of 50 cents. They’re 15 cents in Costco.
Are the Costco ones 15/50 as good? You do know that not all nappies are the same?
The Costco ones will be fine, they may even be good.
The big difference in the pricing is around distribution. If you want to get your diapers from Costco, you will need to (a) pay up for the privelege of being a member of Costco, and (b) turn up at their warehouse, which is likely far from where the poorest Californians live.
If Costco had an obligation to deliver diapers to the anyone in the State on a schedule, then it would cost them a lot more than 15 cents.
Nevertheless. It'll give the "Conservative media" something to fulminate on to distract idiots from a failed war, rising inflation, Epstein and industrial scale looting of the government.
A Roman burial has been discovered in Lexfen, Colchester. Not unusual, lots of Romans round here once upon a time. But the Beeb says: "Named the "Lexden Lady", the coffin and her remains are due to go on display at the city's Roman Circus visitor centre on Saturday."
She was buried with love and care by her grieving family; should they be a museum exhibit?
What I do t get about Wes Streeting is how he thinks he’s in with a chance. Whilst I suppose, anything’s technically possible if he somehow gets a good start and demonstrates exceptional riz, he’s unlikely. I just can’t see Labour members warming to him, however good he is. IMO he’d better off positioning himself as a potential CoE. It will be interesting to see what happens.
He is Israel's best friend in the Cabinet. Most alarmingly a friend of Mark Regev. I can only think this is a little known fact otherwise he wouldn't even waste his time standing
A Roman burial has been discovered in Lexfen, Colchester. Not unusual, lots of Romans round here once upon a time. But the Beeb says: "Named the "Lexden Lady", the coffin and her remains are due to go on display at the city's Roman Circus visitor centre on Saturday."
She was buried with love and care by her grieving family; should they be a museum exhibit?
It's all a bit strange. Why would all these PPSs, and a handful of junior ministers, resign if no leadership contest is incoming? Notably, they're not all Streeting's people. Also notably, nobody's heard of any of them with the exception of Jess Phillips. I reckon they'll be pretty pissed off if nothing happens imminently - they'll have been hung out to dry by somebody. Which makes me think somebody, presumably Streeting, will make a move this evening.
It all looks incredibly self indulgent and not helping things at all if not.
Hanging subordinates out to dry looks to be part of the present culture.
What I do t get about Wes Streeting is how he thinks he’s in with a chance. Whilst I suppose, anything’s technically possible if he somehow gets a good start and demonstrates exceptional riz, he’s unlikely. I just can’t see Labour members warming to him, however good he is. IMO he’d better off positioning himself as a potential CoE. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Comments
Could sit next to John Major
First Test starts on 4th June
Edit: maybe not, crossed wires
IIRC they were proscribed almost immediately after damaging those RAF aircraft? The UK state is not going to take kindly to people destroying key defence infrastructure.
A Defend Our Juries spokesperson said: “The public will be astonished to learn that in the British justice system a protester can now be convicted of criminal damage for disrupting an arms factory and then be sentenced as ‘terrorists’ without having been convicted of terror charges and with this having been kept secret from the jury.”
https://x.com/pjr1official/status/2053954740971585607?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Just bin jury trials if you’re going to do stuff like this. Wtf is the point. Give power to the Home Secretary to designate terrorists at will, drop all the pretence.
If you attack someone with a sledgehammer, you attacked someone with a sledgehammer.
If you knife someone because they're gay, then you knifed somebody.
Why does the motive for the attack have any bearing on the crime? Not only that, but it also allows the Andrew Tate's of this world to claim that straight men are being ganged up on, and it allows murdering scum to claim that they are somehow political prisoners rather than simple murdering scum.
While I have zero sympathy for the convicted characters, this is effectively a kind of retrospective prosecution.
"Terrorism" is a politically fraught definition in any event, and it's an act of arbitrary power to increase the penalty of a convicted person based on something the jury weren't even told about.
It sets a very dangerous precedent.
- 09:20: Miatta Fahnbulleh (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Devolution, Faith and Communities)
- 13:05: Jess Phillips (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls))
- 13:45: Alex Davies-Jones (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls)
- 16:31: Zubir Ahmed (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health Innovation and Safety)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starmer_ministry#Departures_from_the_Starmer_ministryhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c1e2n923v1lt
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/may/08/california-free-diapers-newborns
I have little faith in jury trials in situations like this. There seems little doubt of the actions of those in court. Yet many people sympathise with them and their cause, and hence you have the risk that someone who nearly paralyzed a police officer gets off free. There are parallels with the Bristol trial of the Colston 4. I can accept a jury acquiting them as no-one was hurt and there was much fellow feeling. But attacking people goes too far.
Except that Trump's behaviour suggests he is very unnappy lately.
Or will he be out for the count ?
Trump: Drugs coming by sea meaning coming by water. A lot of people don’t know what I mean by sea. They think I mean vision. I’m talking about sea like the sea.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/2053992327895486972
Trump appears to be completely asleep at his desk during his mid-morning event
https://x.com/HQNewsNow/status/2053866240771309867
“Trump is literally blinking”
https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/2053883843774673034
I’m more concerned for the criminal damage convictions being converted into terrorism, but the principle still stands for sledgehammer man - he wasn’t convicted of terrorism either.
Newsom last week announced a programme to give 100,000 California residents 400 diapers (nappies, for the UK audience) to babies born in the State.
His view: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2026/05/08/governor-newsom-launches-first-in-the-nation-program-providing-free-diapers-for-all-new-parents/
What’s missing is that the diapers he’s buying for the new babies of California cost the State three times what the same product costs from a supermarket, thanks to a no-bid contract with an NGO “Baby2Baby” whose CEO is on the board of his wife’s NGO, and whose board is full of Hollywood types on large salaries.
Steve Hilton’s take on it, he’s the GOP candidate to replace term-limited Newsom, and yes he’s that Steve Hilton who’s now an American citizen.
https://x.com/stevehiltonx/status/2053491232580538571
Under the law passed by Tony Blair.
There is no prerequisite for the group to be proscribed for an action to be terrorism. Their actions were terrorism, under the law of the land.
So I assume there'll be another one in time for the six-o'clock news, and another towards the end of it. Maximises publicity.
Clarify the Burnham situation. Either he succeeds in becoming an MP over the summer or he doesn't.
If he does there's a leadership election between him and Streeting. If he doesn't there's a leadership election between Streeting and Miliband or Rayner.
Starmer stays until then. No resignation. But the endstate is still a new PM in time for party conference.
I think that's the bones of it.
If Streeting triggers a contest before the Burnham situation is clarified it would bring Miliband or Rayner in and he'd suffer the first mover penalty. It would also be seen as a bit tricksy and lacking in legitimacy if he won. So I don't think he'll do that.
https://x.com/returnofcolin2/status/2053948388270354574?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Under the law he was convicted.
Also under the law what he was convicted of was terrorism.
IANAL but as far as I am aware aggravating and mitigating factors for sentencing purposes are determined by the Judge, not the Jury.
Is there any difference here between the Judge determining terrorism to be an aggravating factor and any other aggravating factors Judges determine in any other case?
You can believe what you want and I will defend your right to do so no matter how much I dislike what you are saying. But attacking people based on your political beliefs? That is terrorism.
Highest in his first term was 42% disapproval.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPkbHLIu1UQ
And I'm sure he's right that program will have cost much more than Costco - not least because one involves distributing diapers to peoples' homes, and the other to massive warehouses.
But I think his math is off. Diapers cost $100/month on average in the US (according to Claude). This program provides you with diapers for your first month of being a parent. There are approximartely 400,000 births per year in California. So, that means that the cost to first month parents is about $40m/year.
This program will cost $7m/year.
You know what? I bet you Costco could have delivered this program for $3-4m/year.
But it's very hard to get a massive fraud scandal out of a program costing the California taxpayer $7m/year, and where diapers do actually seem to have been delievered.
And where they are, I follow the law. Though I will happily vote to change laws I disagree with, I will not take a sledgehammer to someone I disagree with.
That is the difference.
It seems Blair’s Terrorism Act 2000 is being used in exactly the authoritarian ways that the protestors against it said it would be. Even within the terms of that Act the judge appears to have stretched Section 1(1)b to breaking point by claiming that the actions of the convicted fell under the terms of the Act by virtue of being intended to influence the Israeli government. That paragraph doesn’t require the defendants to have been members of a proscribed organisation at the time of the offence, which is why the judge is relying on it & not later sections of the Act.
The PA criminals can go to prison for their mis-deeds, but this legal device ought not to stand.
Yeah, and I think it’s a disgraceful one, in the same way you think 20mph is.
Reform member and chair of parliament for a lunar settlement - what do GB news lace their money with?
That's not the same as your definition here. You are expanding the term.
I don't know exactly what the lead time from that to consumers noticing lower fuel prices given system lags, but it won't be immediate and there's less than 6 months' left to play with for mid terms.
I am a libertarian, I oppose illiberal laws. I opposed it when it was passed.
What bemuses me is authoritarians who are happy to have authoritarian laws passed whinging when the law they supported is used against them.
Or people who insist upon the rule of law being utmost getting irate when they are ruled by law.
Don't give powers to the state if you don't want those powers to be used!
This is from a Burnham ally: Burnham in meetings in London
Regarding a leadership run: Burnham "has a route but isn't prepared to trigger, the power to keep this controlled is with the PM. Can't be reckless"
As you would when 2/3 of the money appears to be swallowed by the admin of a publicly-funded no-bid scheme.
Oh, and the diapers themselves are made in Mexico, most of the usual brands are made in the US.
https://x.com/realpeteyb123/status/2053334964280737862
Which makes me think somebody, presumably Streeting, will make a move this evening.
The big difference in the pricing is around distribution. If you want to get your diapers from Costco, you will need to (a) pay up for the privelege of being a member of Costco, and (b) turn up at their warehouse, which is likely far from where the poorest Californians live.
If Costco had an obligation to deliver diapers to the anyone in the State on a schedule, then it would cost them a lot more than 15 cents.
You've just been tricked into supporting the usual MAGA-led fishing expedition to invent some evil they can rail against.
I know lots of people -in both the UK and the US- who are on charity boards of various flavours. None of them are paid for being on the boards, they do it for the prestige.
Now, it is possible to get rich out of charities and out of defrauding the tax payer -like Aimee Bock, who may well have stolen tens of millions- but board members turn up once a quarter, and do fundraising things, and lend their name and their credibility.
I would support a change in the law.
Unless or until the law changes, the Judge has implemented the law as they should.
There is no "but I agree with their cause" exemption to the law that precludes terrorism from being an aggravating factor here.
I just typed diapers in Amazon search, and got the following:
That's 25 cents, not 15 cents, and that's the price for me with my Prime membership (i.e. free delivery) in a wealthy part of Los Angeles.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Amazon could probably do this for 40 cents all in. Because it's a highly efficient private company. And the State probably would have been better off contracting with Amazon.
But these diapers are going to be going to people who are poor, and who don't have Costco or Amazon Prime memberships. Many of them are going to live in places that are a long way from the nearest distribution center.
Is it that he’s totally shameless now that he’s term-limited, and just wanted a photo opportunity, or is it that he’s hoping the husbands of all the women in this photo-op group donate big bucks to his presidential campaign?
Attempting to overthrow an authoritarian regime should not be terrorism.
On the other hand, criminal damage to a UK military installation should be treason
A charismatic charity lady will have met with a bunch of lawmakers, and described a real problem: poorer women with newborns, unable to afford diapers.
For just $7m/year the charity will be able to source and deliver diapers for the first month to this group.
Now, should the lawmakers have put it out to tender? Sure they should.
But governments don't put small programs (and $7m/year is tiny) out to contract all the time.
This is getting ridicilious.
This is no time for a novice, so it can't be someone untested at the highest level, but we also need a fresh face and a clean break with the past.
How to square the circle? The stand out candidate to be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the greatest living Welsh politician, Julia Gillard.
Trigger Warning: Hardcore uncensored use of a self checkout.
I think this business of the difficulty being that they aren't "coalescing" behind a single candidate is a bit of a red herring. If only 81 of them can coalesce behind Joe (or Josephine) Bloggs, then there will be a contest and there will still be 320 left for any other candidate to find their supporters from. Surely not too hard for anyone who thinks s/he can win the election.
Note, the diapers are given to parents at the hospital, not delivered to their homes. They get slightly more than a month's worth: they get 400, which is about 44 days worth. The NGO say they are making them for 80% less than the retail price. There is $12.5 million assigned in next year's budget, with the scheme expanding to more hospitals.
So nobody is going to make a move until that point.
So Starmer stays in place as the lamest of lame ducks and the country suffers.
You really do have to hand it to the Labour Party to always engineer the worst possible outcome.
Taking a sledgehammer to someone in this country, in order to further a political goal should be terrorism.
Whether it is a group or a lone wolf, and whatever the cause.
It is the criminal damage only element that I would remove from terrorism, but across the board. As it stands, its still the law.
Politically-motivated violence against people in the UK is and should remain terrorism.
Aggravating factors don't need convictions, do they?
Abolish the whole concept of aggravating factors if you dislike it. Don't cherrypick when they can be applied.
A Roman burial has been discovered in Lexfen, Colchester. Not unusual, lots of Romans round here once upon a time.
But the Beeb says:
"Named the "Lexden Lady", the coffin and her remains are due to go on display at the city's Roman Circus visitor centre on Saturday."
She was buried with love and care by her grieving family; should they be a museum exhibit?
Sorry to disappoint but there will be no Chuka comeback.
Told he was in Number 10 as a JP Morgan representative for "a routine meeting about financing security and resiliency". Starmer was not present.