FWIW, I thought at the time that Obama's interference in the Brexit vote was wrong -- and may have been counter-productive, having the opposite effect he intended.
(What should he have done? Stayed silent unless asked, and then said he hoped that the EU and Britain would work through this to be better friends, however the vote went. And then changed the subject.)
I wasn't bothered by Obama's intervention because I'm a global free speech advocate, but the interesting point is how the left in the UK is fine with interventions from abroad as long as they agree with them, but they don't like it when they don't agree with them. So hypocrisy, in other words.
Obama famously interefered in the Brexit vote a few days or perhaps weeks beforehand (I don't recall exactly) by calling for a Yes vote to staying in the EU.
He was not great at foreign policy. While there's far more of a case for the US givikng its opinion on Brexit than the current Trump administration intervention, he would have done far better to have kept quiet.
It looks hypocritical for the government to complain about interference in this case given that they all weighed in on the George Floyd case.
In respect of George Floyd politicians in Britain were responding to people in Britain demonstrating about the issue. Have they're been vigilant, marches or other protests in the US over the British police failings that led to Henry Nowak's death?
And part of the problem was that it was all happening towards the end of Lockdown One in Airstrip One. We were all loopy and desperate for news of any sort to respond to.
Worth pointing out for those who decry the absence of "sport" this weekend, there's the small matter of the Derby at Epsom tomorrow.
One of the most iconic horse races of the year and this year carrying a £1 million prize for the owners though given the ownerships of the favoured runners, you'd be inclined to think the £1 million would be back of the sofa cash.
On the evidence of today's races, the ground is certainly on the soft side. The favourite BENVENUTO CELLINI couldn't cope with an autumnal bog at Doncaster but won on soft at Killarney and I think he has a serious chance.
I've backed BAY OF BRILLIANCE each way and while there are 14 going to post, five have very little chance on all known form.
While the Derby is the feature, the Coronation Cup looks a wonderful race with the world's best middle distance horse CALANDAGAN seeking revenge against the last horse to beat him (in this race last year) JAN BRUEGHEL. The ease in the ground makes me think the latter might confirm places.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
"The United States registered a 6% drop in foreign visitors in 2025 even as global tourism overrode concerns about saturation in some locations to generate a 6.7% rise in spending compared to the previous year..
As foreign tourism in the U.S. dipped, the world's third most visited country saw foreign tourists spend 7% less as arrivals from Canada, Mexico and Europe fell, according to WTTC estimates. However, spending by domestic tourists offset this. The U.S. is the world's largest travel and tourism economy."
Worth pointing out for those who decry the absence of "sport" this weekend, there's the small matter of the Derby at Epsom tomorrow.
One of the most iconic horse races of the year and this year carrying a £1 million prize for the owners though given the ownerships of the favoured runners, you'd be inclined to think the £1 million would be back of the sofa cash.
On the evidence of today's races, the ground is certainly on the soft side. The favourite BENVENUTO CELLINI couldn't cope with an autumnal bog at Doncaster but won on soft at Killarney and I think he has a serious chance.
I've backed BAY OF BRILLIANCE each way and while there are 14 going to post, five have very little chance on all known form.
While the Derby is the feature, the Coronation Cup looks a wonderful race with the world's best middle distance horse CALANDAGAN seeking revenge against the last horse to beat him (in this race last year) JAN BRUEGHEL. The ease in the ground makes me think the latter might confirm places.
"The United States registered a 6% drop in foreign visitors in 2025 even as global tourism overrode concerns about saturation in some locations to generate a 6.7% rise in spending compared to the previous year..
As foreign tourism in the U.S. dipped, the world's third most visited country saw foreign tourists spend 7% less as arrivals from Canada, Mexico and Europe fell, according to WTTC estimates. However, spending by domestic tourists offset this. The U.S. is the world's largest travel and tourism economy."
That doesn't show stats for visits from the UK, which was actually up in 2025.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
We should sanction the officers who did this. Don’t need them coming on vacation to the US. An absolute travesty.
I wonder if she realises that many Britons are avoiding/cancelling US vacations due to the current regime in the US.
Do the stats actually show that?
Foreign visitor numbers to the US are down 5.5% and summer airline bookings from Europe are down 14%. I've not seen figures specifically for UK visitors.
We should sanction the officers who did this. Don’t need them coming on vacation to the US. An absolute travesty.
I wonder if she realises that many Britons are avoiding/cancelling US vacations due to the current regime in the US.
Do the stats actually show that?
Foreign visitor numbers to the US are down 5.5% and summer airline bookings from Europe are down 14%. I've not seen figures specifically for UK visitors.
Driven by big decline from Germany at Switzerland, apparently. Up from the UK, and Russia:
This may amuse some of you: (It amuses -- and exasperates -- me.) Now that our part of the World Cup is near, Seattle is getting nervous about visitors seeing the homeless in this area, the open prostitution and drug use, and so on. So the city is trying to clean up so folks visiting don't see the messes. Those leading the city will probably go back to their ineffectual policies after the Cup, judging by past experience.
(The wealthier suburbs, for example, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Redmond, do better than Seattle on these issues.)
This may amuse some of you: (It amuses -- and exasperates -- me.) Now that our part of the World Cup is near, Seattle is getting nervous about visitors seeing the homeless in this area, the open prostitution and drug use, and so on. So the city is trying to clean up so folks visiting don't see the messes. Those leading the city will probably go back to their ineffectual policies, judging by past experience. (The wealthier suburbs, for example, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Redmond do better than Seattle on these issues.)
This may amuse some of you: (It amuses -- and exasperates -- me.) Now that our part of the World Cup is near, Seattle is getting nervous about visitors seeing the homeless in this area, the open prostitution and drug use, and so on. So the city is trying to clean up so folks visiting don't see the messes. Those leading the city will probably go back to their ineffectual policies after the Cup, judging by past experience.
(The wealthier suburbs, for example, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Redmond, do better than Seattle on these issues.)
"The United States registered a 6% drop in foreign visitors in 2025 even as global tourism overrode concerns about saturation in some locations to generate a 6.7% rise in spending compared to the previous year..
As foreign tourism in the U.S. dipped, the world's third most visited country saw foreign tourists spend 7% less as arrivals from Canada, Mexico and Europe fell, according to WTTC estimates. However, spending by domestic tourists offset this. The U.S. is the world's largest travel and tourism economy."
That doesn't show stats for visits from the UK, which was actually up in 2025.
Yes, UK numbers were up in 2025 compared to 2024 according to this chart, https://www.statista.com/chart/35595/change-in-international-visitors-to-the-united-states/ Big drops from Canada, Germany, Denmark, Chile, Bolivia, Indonesia, lots of Africa. Big rises from Argentina and Mexico. Small rises from the UK, Spain, Russia, Ukraine, Japan. Small falls from China, India, Australia, lots of western Europe.
This may amuse some of you: (It amuses -- and exasperates -- me.) Now that our part of the World Cup is near, Seattle is getting nervous about visitors seeing the homeless in this area, the open prostitution and drug use, and so on. So the city is trying to clean up so folks visiting don't see the messes. Those leading the city will probably go back to their ineffectual policies after the Cup, judging by past experience.
(The wealthier suburbs, for example, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Redmond, do better than Seattle on these issues.)
Britons will feel at home.
Actually they won't. The scenes in Seattle are shocking. Not wholly the city's fault. American cities operate competitive hostile environments towards the homeless, drug users and those with mental health - often all three together. Seattle gets some of the worst because it's a bit less hostile than the others.
New Restore policy suggestion — ostracise people like Davey for 10 years Athens style, except they have to go live under Hamas in Gaza dressed in pride colours
For all of those of you just clocking in, Anthony Head, the guest star of the Doctor Who episode "School Reunion" and other roles, died today at the age of 72, less than a year after his wife died unexpectedly.
This may amuse some of you: (It amuses -- and exasperates -- me.) Now that our part of the World Cup is near, Seattle is getting nervous about visitors seeing the homeless in this area, the open prostitution and drug use, and so on. So the city is trying to clean up so folks visiting don't see the messes. Those leading the city will probably go back to their ineffectual policies after the Cup, judging by past experience.
(The wealthier suburbs, for example, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Redmond, do better than Seattle on these issues.)
Britons will feel at home.
Not as much as the Dutch. "open prostitution and drugs use" A little bit of home
FWIW, I thought at the time that Obama's interference in the Brexit vote was wrong -- and may have been counter-productive, having the opposite effect he intended.
(What should he have done? Stayed silent unless asked, and then said he hoped that the EU and Britain would work through this to be better friends, however the vote went. And then changed the subject.)
not sure stating the bleeding obvious is interference, but you do you
Of course, we won't know until much later in the year what has happened. But I question the assertion that many are re-considering or even cancelling trips. Some might, but I would wager any variation in tourist numbers would be single digit % at most.
Of course, we won't know until much later in the year what has happened. But I question the assertion that many are re-considering or even cancelling trips. Some might, but I would wager any variation in tourist numbers would be single digit % at most.
About 4 million British people visit the US a year, so 1% of them is still 40,000. I'd call 40,000 "many".
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Westminster constituency loses the substantial rural area of North Kincardshire, but gains a chunk of Aberdeen Central Holyrood constituency.
There were 46 365 votes cast in July 24 in Aberdeen South on a 59.9% turnout, while 34 669 were cast on a 55% turnout in May's Holyrood election in Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardshire. So it is clear that the urban population gained is larger than the rural population lost.
The area gained was in Holyrood constituency Aberdeen Central which was heavily SNP (44%) with Lab in second and SCon on 13.9% in 4th place.
So the differences in boundaries favours an SNP hold. Particularly as SLab voters often seem reluctant to switch to SCon, and indeed often prefer the SNP when we look at transfers in local elections.
While the SCon are trying to make this a referendum on Oil and Gas, the Nationalist vote seems very sticky.
Of course, we won't know until much later in the year what has happened. But I question the assertion that many are re-considering or even cancelling trips. Some might, but I would wager any variation in tourist numbers would be single digit % at most.
About 4 million British people visit the US a year, so 1% of them is still 40,000. I'd call 40,000 "many".
It’s not many relative to the total number going, which is the most relevant number to compare it to.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
Of course, we won't know until much later in the year what has happened. But I question the assertion that many are re-considering or even cancelling trips. Some might, but I would wager any variation in tourist numbers would be single digit % at most.
"Keir Starmer has suggested the US is trying to interfere in British democracy after JD Vance, the US vice-president, blamed the murder of the British teenager Henry Nowak on mass migration."
Lol. JD Vance is married to a woman of Indian descent, you have to wonder at their dinner table conversations.
FWIW, I thought at the time that Obama's interference in the Brexit vote was wrong -- and may have been counter-productive, having the opposite effect he intended.
(What should he have done? Stayed silent unless asked, and then said he hoped that the EU and Britain would work through this to be better friends, however the vote went. And then changed the subject.)
I wasn't bothered by Obama's intervention because I'm a global free speech advocate, but the interesting point is how the left in the UK is fine with interventions from abroad as long as they agree with them, but they don't like it when they don't agree with them. So hypocrisy, in other words.
I suppose there is a thread. The US, then, felt they had an interest in the UK remaining part of the European Union. Now they seem to feel they have an interest in the UK succumbing to racial division and turning to far-right ethno-nationalism.
Of course, we won't know until much later in the year what has happened. But I question the assertion that many are re-considering or even cancelling trips. Some might, but I would wager any variation in tourist numbers would be single digit % at most.
Some are refusing to make business trips.
Well I am, anyway.
My wife, who is American, will not visit again until Trump is gone.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
Well that and then expressing regret for taking the knee. And then expressing regret for expressing regret.
If you want to be radical, you also have to be reassuring.
As the trope from the Hackerverse goes, if you want to launch a radical Grand Design, you have to do it from a library with lots of leather-bound books on the shelves.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
I note little interest in this case of a knife murder of a student with life sentence handed out yesterday. No calls for "cold hard anger" either. There are some similarities to the Novak case.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
I note little interest in this case of a knife murder of a student with life sentence handed out yesterday. No calls for "cold hard anger" either. There are some similarities to the Novak case.
Of course, we won't know until much later in the year what has happened. But I question the assertion that many are re-considering or even cancelling trips. Some might, but I would wager any variation in tourist numbers would be single digit % at most.
Some are refusing to make business trips.
Well I am, anyway.
My wife, who is American, will not visit again until Trump is gone.
I went to Utah last year for a research meeting, but only because I had booked the tickets before Trump got elected.
I won't be going to the USA again until things change there.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
They are too busy frotting themselves over the stellar performance of the "plucky plumber" who had Andy Burnham squirming last night. They didn't watch it as they won't watch the BBC, but that's what everyone is saying. I am not making this up by the way.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
It certainly rankles me that in case after case the Police are rankly incompetent. They get away with all kinds of stuff that in education would get you escorted off the property and barred from teaching, on a seemingly regular basis. No one appears to be joining this together, rather than cherry picking cases which align with their political viewpoint. And, of course, it's a difficult job. But so is education.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
I just need to pull you up on “…and it’s resulted in…”. The evidence is that the injuries he suffered were unsurvivable however quickly he was treated. It’s important we are scrupulously accurate here are the atmosphere is febrile enough. The police (as a whole) behaved appallingly but the only person responsible for this death has already been convicted of it.
Again, I don’t want to minimise anything, but we all have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible given the court of digital opinion has already convicted without all the facts.
FWIW, I thought at the time that Obama's interference in the Brexit vote was wrong -- and may have been counter-productive, having the opposite effect he intended.
(What should he have done? Stayed silent unless asked, and then said he hoped that the EU and Britain would work through this to be better friends, however the vote went. And then changed the subject.)
I wasn't bothered by Obama's intervention because I'm a global free speech advocate, but the interesting point is how the left in the UK is fine with interventions from abroad as long as they agree with them, but they don't like it when they don't agree with them. So hypocrisy, in other words.
I suppose there is a thread. The US, then, felt they had an interest in the UK remaining part of the European Union. Now they seem to feel they have an interest in the UK succumbing to racial division and turning to far-right ethno-nationalism.
I think Andy's point isn't that Obama shouldn't have an opinion, nor even that he had no right to express an opinion, but that his 'back of the queue' comment was counterproductive: voters are seldom persuaded by threats from foreign leaders (see: Trump) and it also was unhelpful for the cause of UK:US relationships.
In general, this is a difficult line for a foreign leader to take - but not that difficult. The correct approach is "I value x and I believe the voters ot country y do too, but this is a matter purely for the voters of country y and our friendship with country y will.continue regardless."
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Yes, much of the reaction to this from the online right is about payback for BLM.
"They had that George Floyd thing so we'll make this like that for us. That'll teach them."
You can see this with the demands that Starmer 'takes the knee' for Henry. There's a definite trolling edge to it.
So, I don't know. Is it really understandable anger about double standards? Or is it rather infantile passive aggression from an ignorant insecure bunch of numbskulls?
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question. .
I think it is in question.
Firstly the pathologist at the trial (as quoted by the judge in the sentencing remarks) said that the chest wound was not treatable due to the rapid loss of blood internally, so whatever the police did could not have saved Novak.
Secondly, it is far from clear that the police made their errors due to racism rather than from being misled by the information that they had and from Digwa and his family who were present at the scene.
That is why we need to wait for the enquiry into the death.
Also, next week Digwa and his family are on trial for possession of weapons, and that case should clarify the legality of the knife that was used in the murder. Digwa's Kirpan was under his clothing and not used in the attack.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
i dont think the initial police response was anything more than it being pretty unusual for a murderer to call 999 to report that they've been assaulted. ymmv
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
I just need to pull you up on “…and it’s resulted in…”. The evidence is that the injuries he suffered were unsurvivable however quickly he was treated. It’s important we are scrupulously accurate here are the atmosphere is febrile enough. The police (as a whole) behaved appallingly but the only person responsible for this death has already been convicted of it.
Again, I don’t want to minimise anything, but we all have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible given the court of digital opinion has already convicted without all the facts.
If that is the case I'm happy to withdraw "resulted in" - as you say, accuracy is important in this sort of thing.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
The laws grant exceptions to carrying knives on the grounds of work or religious grounds or national dress, ie anyone who has a reasonable grounds for carrying them. This applies to eg Scots as well, I am intrigued to discover that I am now an ethnic minority! There are no laws against insulting anybody's religion. There is however a history of discrimination that certain efforts have been made to overcome, and I as a heterosexual middle class white man support these efforts. It's incredible to me that at the first sight of any efforts to equalize things there is the cry of unfair from people who have historically been the beneficiaries of this kind of inequality. Of course people may feel like life is loaded against them. But I would respectfully argue that minorities are not the reason. We might want to look at eg the wholesale assault on the working class starting from 1979 onwards to understand what is going on there. Of course spivvy city Boys like Farage want us to find alternative scapegoats.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
I just need to pull you up on “…and it’s resulted in…”. The evidence is that the injuries he suffered were unsurvivable however quickly he was treated. It’s important we are scrupulously accurate here are the atmosphere is febrile enough. The police (as a whole) behaved appallingly but the only person responsible for this death has already been convicted of it.
Again, I don’t want to minimise anything, but we all have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible given the court of digital opinion has already convicted without all the facts.
Whether the injuries were unsurvivable is a matter of opinion, but there was around an hour between the stabbing and his eventual death, so with quicker medical attention he might have stood a chance.
“They are too busy frotting themselves over the stellar performance of the "plucky plumber" who had Andy Burnham squirming last night.
They didn't watch it as they won't watch the BBC, but that's what everyone is saying.
I am not making this up by the way!”
Yes you are.
I am not Labour let alone Burnham supporter but the Reform candidate was less like a Rabbit in the Headlights than one that had just been run over.
Peter.
No I am not. Please withdraw. That is entirely the reaction from pro Reform Facebook feeds. It's entirely Trumpian. I've been here a long time and don't lie. I don't like being called a liar by arrogant posters with 64 posts.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
I just need to pull you up on “…and it’s resulted in…”. The evidence is that the injuries he suffered were unsurvivable however quickly he was treated. It’s important we are scrupulously accurate here are the atmosphere is febrile enough. The police (as a whole) behaved appallingly but the only person responsible for this death has already been convicted of it.
Again, I don’t want to minimise anything, but we all have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible given the court of digital opinion has already convicted without all the facts.
The official report stated that the wounds were not survivable. There has been some suggestions that the actions of the police in moving him may have destabilised him and that cuffing him could have accelerated his decline. It's striking that he was fairly lucid when the police arrived but deteriorated rapidly after being moved - that may have happened anyway. I'm not an expert and the danger is that this idea fits the narrative of blaming the police for what should be laid at Digwa's door.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
I just need to pull you up on “…and it’s resulted in…”. The evidence is that the injuries he suffered were unsurvivable however quickly he was treated. It’s important we are scrupulously accurate here are the atmosphere is febrile enough. The police (as a whole) behaved appallingly but the only person responsible for this death has already been convicted of it.
Again, I don’t want to minimise anything, but we all have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible given the court of digital opinion has already convicted without all the facts.
Whether the injuries were unsurvivable is a matter of opinion, but there was around an hour between the stabbing and his eventual death, so with quicker medical attention he might have stood a chance.
Bullshit. The medical evidence (evidence, not opinion) at trial, not disputed by the defence or prosecution, was that they were unsurvivable. Just because some frother you follow on Facebook says otherwise doesn’t mean that you can change that evidence (not opinion).
Your post is everything that’s wrong with the Internet.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
I just need to pull you up on “…and it’s resulted in…”. The evidence is that the injuries he suffered were unsurvivable however quickly he was treated. It’s important we are scrupulously accurate here are the atmosphere is febrile enough. The police (as a whole) behaved appallingly but the only person responsible for this death has already been convicted of it.
Again, I don’t want to minimise anything, but we all have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible given the court of digital opinion has already convicted without all the facts.
Whether the injuries were unsurvivable is a matter of opinion, but there was around an hour between the stabbing and his eventual death, so with quicker medical attention he might have stood a chance.
That isn't what the Pathologist said at the trial.
The police officer who handcuffed Novak took the handcuffs off 1 minute later and commenced CPR, so there was not a delay to treatment of more than a couple of minutes.
Death is only pronounced when CPR and other attempts at resicitation cease. In a young man that may well be an hour, but it does not mean that more could have been done in that hour.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
I just need to pull you up on “…and it’s resulted in…”. The evidence is that the injuries he suffered were unsurvivable however quickly he was treated. It’s important we are scrupulously accurate here are the atmosphere is febrile enough. The police (as a whole) behaved appallingly but the only person responsible for this death has already been convicted of it.
Again, I don’t want to minimise anything, but we all have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible given the court of digital opinion has already convicted without all the facts.
Whether the injuries were unsurvivable is a matter of opinion, but there was around an hour between the stabbing and his eventual death, so with quicker medical attention he might have stood a chance.
Bullshit. The medical evidence (evidence, not opinion) at trial, not disputed by the defence or prosecution, was that they were unsurvivable. Just because some frother you follow on Facebook says otherwise doesn’t mean that you can change that evidence (not opinion).
Your post is everything that’s wrong with the Internet.
It wasn't an hour from stabbing till death. That might have been when it was certified. It was more likely no more than 10 minutes. Allegedly Digwa filmed Nowak for 5 minutes or so after he had stabbed him.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
I just need to pull you up on “…and it’s resulted in…”. The evidence is that the injuries he suffered were unsurvivable however quickly he was treated. It’s important we are scrupulously accurate here are the atmosphere is febrile enough. The police (as a whole) behaved appallingly but the only person responsible for this death has already been convicted of it.
Again, I don’t want to minimise anything, but we all have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible given the court of digital opinion has already convicted without all the facts.
Whether the injuries were unsurvivable is a matter of opinion, but there was around an hour between the stabbing and his eventual death, so with quicker medical attention he might have stood a chance.
That isn't what the Pathologist said at the trial.
The police officer who handcuffed Novak took the handcuffs off 1 minute later and commenced CPR, so there was not a delay to treatment of more than a couple of minutes.
Death is only pronounced when CPR and other attempts at resicitation cease. In a young man that may well be an hour, but it does not mean that more could have been done in that hour.
During the trial, the judge cited an assessment of the pathologist, stating: "No emergency medical treatment would have permitted access to the bleeding vein. In simple terms, he would not have survived, however quickly he received first aid, CPR or expert medical treatment,"
No doubt @williamglenn has access to other medical evidence not available to the rest of us.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
The laws grant exceptions to carrying knives on the grounds of work or religious grounds or national dress, ie anyone who has a reasonable grounds for carrying them. This applies to eg Scots as well, I am intrigued to discover that I am now an ethnic minority! There are no laws against insulting anybody's religion. There is however a history of discrimination that certain efforts have been made to overcome, and I as a heterosexual middle class white man support these efforts. It's incredible to me that at the first sight of any efforts to equalize things there is the cry of unfair from people who have historically been the beneficiaries of this kind of inequality. Of course people may feel like life is loaded against them. But I would respectfully argue that minorities are not the reason. We might want to look at eg the wholesale assault on the working class starting from 1979 onwards to understand what is going on there. Of course spivvy city Boys like Farage want us to find alternative scapegoats.
The problem comes from trying to achieve statistically equal outcomes from statistically unequal populations. We have a very clear example of this leading to a tragic outcome in the case of Valdo Calocane:
FWIW, I thought at the time that Obama's interference in the Brexit vote was wrong -- and may have been counter-productive, having the opposite effect he intended.
(What should he have done? Stayed silent unless asked, and then said he hoped that the EU and Britain would work through this to be better friends, however the vote went. And then changed the subject.)
I wasn't bothered by Obama's intervention because I'm a global free speech advocate, but the interesting point is how the left in the UK is fine with interventions from abroad as long as they agree with them, but they don't like it when they don't agree with them. So hypocrisy, in other words.
I suppose there is a thread. The US, then, felt they had an interest in the UK remaining part of the European Union. Now they seem to feel they have an interest in the UK succumbing to racial division and turning to far-right ethno-nationalism.
A lot of SNP folk were upset at Obama during the Independence Referendum for backing the Union but in reality like Brexit he backed the Status Quo.
Both were unknown Territory and in each case the US like markets wanted as much as possible, stability, predictability and continuity.
What makes this different as with intervening with backing Boris or Farage here or Orban in Hungary is a willingness to intervene directly in day to day politics and alter their course.
Still on the bright side, even if some people would welcome it, they haven’t sent Delta Force to kidnap Starmer and installed Farage!
FWIW, I thought at the time that Obama's interference in the Brexit vote was wrong -- and may have been counter-productive, having the opposite effect he intended.
(What should he have done? Stayed silent unless asked, and then said he hoped that the EU and Britain would work through this to be better friends, however the vote went. And then changed the subject.)
I wasn't bothered by Obama's intervention because I'm a global free speech advocate, but the interesting point is how the left in the UK is fine with interventions from abroad as long as they agree with them, but they don't like it when they don't agree with them. So hypocrisy, in other words.
I suppose there is a thread. The US, then, felt they had an interest in the UK remaining part of the European Union. Now they seem to feel they have an interest in the UK succumbing to racial division and turning to far-right ethno-nationalism.
A lot of SNP folk were upset at Obama during the Independence Referendum for backing the Union but in reality like Brexit he backed the Status Quo.
Both were unknown Territory and in each case the US like markets wanted as much as possible, stability, predictability and continuity.
What makes this different as with intervening with backing Boris or Farage here or Orban in Hungary is a willingness to intervene directly in day to day politics and alter their course.
Still on the bright side, even if some people would welcome it, they haven’t sent Delta Force to kidnap Starmer and installed Farage!
Some supermarkets in Crimea are now running out of staple foods like pasta, buckwheat, rice and sugar. How much this is due to fuel shortages disrupting food deliveries, or the fuel shortages leading to people to stockpile staple foods, I don't know.
The fuel situation in Russia is becoming a major crisis.
What's more. If I inadvertently get things wrong I'm more than happy to admit it. And I don't mind apologising. Fact is. Reform talking to itself are painting QT as a triumph for Kenyon which will lead to his comfortable victory. They've (been instructed?) to move on from the Nowak case. Setting up the stolen by election narrative is their next move. Again.
FWIW, I thought at the time that Obama's interference in the Brexit vote was wrong -- and may have been counter-productive, having the opposite effect he intended.
(What should he have done? Stayed silent unless asked, and then said he hoped that the EU and Britain would work through this to be better friends, however the vote went. And then changed the subject.)
I wasn't bothered by Obama's intervention because I'm a global free speech advocate, but the interesting point is how the left in the UK is fine with interventions from abroad as long as they agree with them, but they don't like it when they don't agree with them. So hypocrisy, in other words.
I suppose there is a thread. The US, then, felt they had an interest in the UK remaining part of the European Union. Now they seem to feel they have an interest in the UK succumbing to racial division and turning to far-right ethno-nationalism.
I think Andy's point isn't that Obama shouldn't have an opinion, nor even that he had no right to express an opinion, but that his 'back of the queue' comment was counterproductive: voters are seldom persuaded by threats from foreign leaders (see: Trump) and it also was unhelpful for the cause of UK:US relationships.
In general, this is a difficult line for a foreign leader to take - but not that difficult. The correct approach is "I value x and I believe the voters ot country y do too, but this is a matter purely for the voters of country y and our friendship with country y will.continue regardless."
Andy's point was that he is cool about people anywhere saying anything, since he's a global free speech advocate, but it seems (to him) that the left (the left in particular) are happy enough when they agree with what's said but hypocritically make a big fuss when they aren't.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
I just need to pull you up on “…and it’s resulted in…”. The evidence is that the injuries he suffered were unsurvivable however quickly he was treated. It’s important we are scrupulously accurate here are the atmosphere is febrile enough. The police (as a whole) behaved appallingly but the only person responsible for this death has already been convicted of it.
Again, I don’t want to minimise anything, but we all have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible given the court of digital opinion has already convicted without all the facts.
Whether the injuries were unsurvivable is a matter of opinion, but there was around an hour between the stabbing and his eventual death, so with quicker medical attention he might have stood a chance.
Bullshit. The medical evidence (evidence, not opinion) at trial, not disputed by the defence or prosecution, was that they were unsurvivable. Just because some frother you follow on Facebook says otherwise doesn’t mean that you can change that evidence (not opinion).
Your post is everything that’s wrong with the Internet.
It wasn't an hour from stabbing till death. That might have been when it was certified. It was more likely no more than 10 minutes. Allegedly Digwa filmed Nowak for 5 minutes or so after he had stabbed him.
I thought there was a longer delay than that before the emergency services were first alerted but may have that wrong.
FWIW, I thought at the time that Obama's interference in the Brexit vote was wrong -- and may have been counter-productive, having the opposite effect he intended.
(What should he have done? Stayed silent unless asked, and then said he hoped that the EU and Britain would work through this to be better friends, however the vote went. And then changed the subject.)
I wasn't bothered by Obama's intervention because I'm a global free speech advocate, but the interesting point is how the left in the UK is fine with interventions from abroad as long as they agree with them, but they don't like it when they don't agree with them. So hypocrisy, in other words.
I suppose there is a thread. The US, then, felt they had an interest in the UK remaining part of the European Union. Now they seem to feel they have an interest in the UK succumbing to racial division and turning to far-right ethno-nationalism.
I think Andy's point isn't that Obama shouldn't have an opinion, nor even that he had no right to express an opinion, but that his 'back of the queue' comment was counterproductive: voters are seldom persuaded by threats from foreign leaders (see: Trump) and it also was unhelpful for the cause of UK:US relationships.
In general, this is a difficult line for a foreign leader to take - but not that difficult. The correct approach is "I value x and I believe the voters ot country y do too, but this is a matter purely for the voters of country y and our friendship with country y will.continue regardless."
Andy's point was that he is cool about people anywhere saying anything, since he's a global free speech advocate, but it seems (to him) that the left (the left in particular) are happy enough when they agree with what's said but hypocritically make a big fuss when they aren't.
The Right being notoriously thick skinned in that regard.
FWIW, I thought at the time that Obama's interference in the Brexit vote was wrong -- and may have been counter-productive, having the opposite effect he intended.
(What should he have done? Stayed silent unless asked, and then said he hoped that the EU and Britain would work through this to be better friends, however the vote went. And then changed the subject.)
I wasn't bothered by Obama's intervention because I'm a global free speech advocate, but the interesting point is how the left in the UK is fine with interventions from abroad as long as they agree with them, but they don't like it when they don't agree with them. So hypocrisy, in other words.
I suppose there is a thread. The US, then, felt they had an interest in the UK remaining part of the European Union. Now they seem to feel they have an interest in the UK succumbing to racial division and turning to far-right ethno-nationalism.
I think Andy's point isn't that Obama shouldn't have an opinion, nor even that he had no right to express an opinion, but that his 'back of the queue' comment was counterproductive: voters are seldom persuaded by threats from foreign leaders (see: Trump) and it also was unhelpful for the cause of UK:US relationships.
In general, this is a difficult line for a foreign leader to take - but not that difficult. The correct approach is "I value x and I believe the voters ot country y do too, but this is a matter purely for the voters of country y and our friendship with country y will.continue regardless."
Andy's point was that he is cool about people anywhere saying anything, since he's a global free speech advocate, but it seems (to him) that the left (the left in particular) are happy enough when they agree with what's said but hypocritically make a big fuss when they aren't.
The Right being notoriously thick skinned in that regard.
It's hypocrisy to only call out the hypocrisy of the left!
FWIW, I thought at the time that Obama's interference in the Brexit vote was wrong -- and may have been counter-productive, having the opposite effect he intended.
(What should he have done? Stayed silent unless asked, and then said he hoped that the EU and Britain would work through this to be better friends, however the vote went. And then changed the subject.)
I wasn't bothered by Obama's intervention because I'm a global free speech advocate, but the interesting point is how the left in the UK is fine with interventions from abroad as long as they agree with them, but they don't like it when they don't agree with them. So hypocrisy, in other words.
I suppose there is a thread. The US, then, felt they had an interest in the UK remaining part of the European Union. Now they seem to feel they have an interest in the UK succumbing to racial division and turning to far-right ethno-nationalism.
A lot of SNP folk were upset at Obama during the Independence Referendum for backing the Union but in reality like Brexit he backed the Status Quo.
Both were unknown Territory and in each case the US like markets wanted as much as possible, stability, predictability and continuity.
What makes this different as with intervening with backing Boris or Farage here or Orban in Hungary is a willingness to intervene directly in day to day politics and alter their course.
Still on the bright side, even if some people would welcome it, they haven’t sent Delta Force to kidnap Starmer and installed Farage!
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
The laws grant exceptions to carrying knives on the grounds of work or religious grounds or national dress, ie anyone who has a reasonable grounds for carrying them. This applies to eg Scots as well, I am intrigued to discover that I am now an ethnic minority! There are no laws against insulting anybody's religion. There is however a history of discrimination that certain efforts have been made to overcome, and I as a heterosexual middle class white man support these efforts. It's incredible to me that at the first sight of any efforts to equalize things there is the cry of unfair from people who have historically been the beneficiaries of this kind of inequality. Of course people may feel like life is loaded against them. But I would respectfully argue that minorities are not the reason. We might want to look at eg the wholesale assault on the working class starting from 1979 onwards to understand what is going on there. Of course spivvy city Boys like Farage want us to find alternative scapegoats.
The problem comes from trying to achieve statistically equal outcomes from statistically unequal populations. We have a very clear example of this leading to a tragic outcome in the case of Valdo Calocane:
Nottingham killer was not sectioned because of his race, inquiry told
Reading that report in the Guardian it appears the decision you refer to was in 2020 but that he was subsequently readmitted and indeed sectioned and it wasn’t until two years afterwards that he was free. The actual attack took place in 2023 so it’s at best tenuous to suggest that taking ethnicity into account as part of a wider discussion three years before was much of a factor.
They asked the question are we biased because of race but it was one of many factors they would have considered in a case like that.
One of the issues psychologists have to consider is if the more of our culture or upbringing or even background are directly applicable to Thor patient so they can be sure they are making the right decision for them. It’s not about Statistically Equal Outcomes it’s about Patient Centred Care.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
The laws grant exceptions to carrying knives on the grounds of work or religious grounds or national dress, ie anyone who has a reasonable grounds for carrying them. This applies to eg Scots as well, I am intrigued to discover that I am now an ethnic minority! There are no laws against insulting anybody's religion. There is however a history of discrimination that certain efforts have been made to overcome, and I as a heterosexual middle class white man support these efforts. It's incredible to me that at the first sight of any efforts to equalize things there is the cry of unfair from people who have historically been the beneficiaries of this kind of inequality. Of course people may feel like life is loaded against them. But I would respectfully argue that minorities are not the reason. We might want to look at eg the wholesale assault on the working class starting from 1979 onwards to understand what is going on there. Of course spivvy city Boys like Farage want us to find alternative scapegoats.
The problem comes from trying to achieve statistically equal outcomes from statistically unequal populations. We have a very clear example of this leading to a tragic outcome in the case of Valdo Calocane:
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
The laws grant exceptions to carrying knives on the grounds of work or religious grounds or national dress, ie anyone who has a reasonable grounds for carrying them. This applies to eg Scots as well, I am intrigued to discover that I am now an ethnic minority! There are no laws against insulting anybody's religion. There is however a history of discrimination that certain efforts have been made to overcome, and I as a heterosexual middle class white man support these efforts. It's incredible to me that at the first sight of any efforts to equalize things there is the cry of unfair from people who have historically been the beneficiaries of this kind of inequality. Of course people may feel like life is loaded against them. But I would respectfully argue that minorities are not the reason. We might want to look at eg the wholesale assault on the working class starting from 1979 onwards to understand what is going on there. Of course spivvy city Boys like Farage want us to find alternative scapegoats.
The problem comes from trying to achieve statistically equal outcomes from statistically unequal populations. We have a very clear example of this leading to a tragic outcome in the case of Valdo Calocane:
Nottingham killer was not sectioned because of his race, inquiry told
Reading that report in the Guardian it appears the decision you refer to was in 2020 but that he was subsequently readmitted and indeed sectioned and it wasn’t until two years afterwards that he was free. The actual attack took place in 2023 so it’s at best tenuous to suggest that taking ethnicity into account as part of a wider discussion three years before was much of a factor.
They asked the question are we biased because of race but it was one of many factors they would have considered in a case like that.
One of the issues psychologists have to consider is if the more of our culture or upbringing or even background are directly applicable to Thor patient so they can be sure they are making the right decision for them. It’s not about Statistically Equal Outcomes it’s about Patient Centred Care.
Peter.
It's the official policy of this government that statistically unequal rates of detention under the mental health act are evidence of discrimination and need to be corrected.
In the case of the police, their race action plan says that they aim to achieve equity, defined as equality of outcome rather than equality of treatment.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
The laws grant exceptions to carrying knives on the grounds of work or religious grounds or national dress, ie anyone who has a reasonable grounds for carrying them. This applies to eg Scots as well, I am intrigued to discover that I am now an ethnic minority! There are no laws against insulting anybody's religion. There is however a history of discrimination that certain efforts have been made to overcome, and I as a heterosexual middle class white man support these efforts. It's incredible to me that at the first sight of any efforts to equalize things there is the cry of unfair from people who have historically been the beneficiaries of this kind of inequality. Of course people may feel like life is loaded against them. But I would respectfully argue that minorities are not the reason. We might want to look at eg the wholesale assault on the working class starting from 1979 onwards to understand what is going on there. Of course spivvy city Boys like Farage want us to find alternative scapegoats.
The problem comes from trying to achieve statistically equal outcomes from statistically unequal populations. We have a very clear example of this leading to a tragic outcome in the case of Valdo Calocane:
Nottingham killer was not sectioned because of his race, inquiry told
Reading that report in the Guardian it appears the decision you refer to was in 2020 but that he was subsequently readmitted and indeed sectioned and it wasn’t until two years afterwards that he was free. The actual attack took place in 2023 so it’s at best tenuous to suggest that taking ethnicity into account as part of a wider discussion three years before was much of a factor.
They asked the question are we biased because of race but it was one of many factors they would have considered in a case like that.
One of the issues psychologists have to consider is if the more of our culture or upbringing or even background are directly applicable to Thor patient so they can be sure they are making the right decision for them. It’s not about Statistically Equal Outcomes it’s about Patient Centred Care.
Peter.
It's the official policy of this government that statistically unequal rates of detention under the mental health act are evidence of discrimination and need to be corrected.
In the case of the police, their race action plan says that they aim to achieve equity, defined as equality of outcome rather than equality of treatment.
you think we live in a single tier society mr glenn? bless your cotton socks
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
The laws grant exceptions to carrying knives on the grounds of work or religious grounds or national dress, ie anyone who has a reasonable grounds for carrying them. This applies to eg Scots as well, I am intrigued to discover that I am now an ethnic minority! There are no laws against insulting anybody's religion. There is however a history of discrimination that certain efforts have been made to overcome, and I as a heterosexual middle class white man support these efforts. It's incredible to me that at the first sight of any efforts to equalize things there is the cry of unfair from people who have historically been the beneficiaries of this kind of inequality. Of course people may feel like life is loaded against them. But I would respectfully argue that minorities are not the reason. We might want to look at eg the wholesale assault on the working class starting from 1979 onwards to understand what is going on there. Of course spivvy city Boys like Farage want us to find alternative scapegoats.
The problem comes from trying to achieve statistically equal outcomes from statistically unequal populations. We have a very clear example of this leading to a tragic outcome in the case of Valdo Calocane:
Nottingham killer was not sectioned because of his race, inquiry told
Reading that report in the Guardian it appears the decision you refer to was in 2020 but that he was subsequently readmitted and indeed sectioned and it wasn’t until two years afterwards that he was free. The actual attack took place in 2023 so it’s at best tenuous to suggest that taking ethnicity into account as part of a wider discussion three years before was much of a factor.
They asked the question are we biased because of race but it was one of many factors they would have considered in a case like that.
One of the issues psychologists have to consider is if the more of our culture or upbringing or even background are directly applicable to Thor patient so they can be sure they are making the right decision for them. It’s not about Statistically Equal Outcomes it’s about Patient Centred Care.
Peter.
It's the official policy of this government that statistically unequal rates of detention under the mental health act are evidence of discrimination and need to be corrected.
In the case of the police, their race action plan says that they aim to achieve equity, defined as equality of outcome rather than equality of treatment.
Equity of Treatment is the route to Equity of Outcomes; treat everyone the fairly and everyone gets the same result. But in order to treat everyone fairly you need to accept that everyone is different and one size doesn’t fit all.
So treating minorities differently needs to be addressed somehow. The issue is in practice it’s damned near impossible to do.
I know someone who works in the Club scene in Glasgow and who regularly meets people dealing with drugs; usual a bad batch, or taking too much. The most common taking more before the first one has kicked in.
There experience is that when the Police get involved the quality of their response varies wildly from incident to incident depending on the officers and they reckon that in about a quarter of cases they make a hash of it (no pun intended!)
For me some good officers made a basic error that they would never have made if they had attended that incident a dozen times. It will haunt them for the rest of their lives and they will forever wish they could do it again.
I know one serving officer who hates body cams. He knows why they are a good idea in theory but in practice he thinks they are becoming like VAR; there every decision is going to be scrutinised and criticised by an army of amateur armchair pundits.
Watching the last week I am starting to agree with them.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
I note little interest in this case of a knife murder of a student with life sentence handed out yesterday. No calls for "cold hard anger" either. There are some similarities to the Novak case.
"Corrigan's father, Peter Corrigan, 50, was also jailed for two years after pleading guilty to assisting an offender after concealing high-visibility clothing that his son had been wearing at the time of the attack."
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
The laws grant exceptions to carrying knives on the grounds of work or religious grounds or national dress, ie anyone who has a reasonable grounds for carrying them. This applies to eg Scots as well, I am intrigued to discover that I am now an ethnic minority! There are no laws against insulting anybody's religion. There is however a history of discrimination that certain efforts have been made to overcome, and I as a heterosexual middle class white man support these efforts. It's incredible to me that at the first sight of any efforts to equalize things there is the cry of unfair from people who have historically been the beneficiaries of this kind of inequality. Of course people may feel like life is loaded against them. But I would respectfully argue that minorities are not the reason. We might want to look at eg the wholesale assault on the working class starting from 1979 onwards to understand what is going on there. Of course spivvy city Boys like Farage want us to find alternative scapegoats.
The problem comes from trying to achieve statistically equal outcomes from statistically unequal populations. We have a very clear example of this leading to a tragic outcome in the case of Valdo Calocane:
Nottingham killer was not sectioned because of his race, inquiry told
Reading that report in the Guardian it appears the decision you refer to was in 2020 but that he was subsequently readmitted and indeed sectioned and it wasn’t until two years afterwards that he was free. The actual attack took place in 2023 so it’s at best tenuous to suggest that taking ethnicity into account as part of a wider discussion three years before was much of a factor.
They asked the question are we biased because of race but it was one of many factors they would have considered in a case like that.
One of the issues psychologists have to consider is if the more of our culture or upbringing or even background are directly applicable to Thor patient so they can be sure they are making the right decision for them. It’s not about Statistically Equal Outcomes it’s about Patient Centred Care.
Peter.
It's the official policy of this government that statistically unequal rates of detention under the mental health act are evidence of discrimination and need to be corrected.
In the case of the police, their race action plan says that they aim to achieve equity, defined as equality of outcome rather than equality of treatment.
you think we live in a single tier society mr glenn? bless your cotton socks
The societal factors that may or may not have led someone to be sectioned, or to commit a crime, should not be relevant in the application of the law in either case. A person is sectioned because they are considered a danger to themselves and others - they are not less of a danger because they're not white, so why on earth would they be less sectioned? It is the same with crime. Criminals need to be apprehended, stopped from committing crime, and face justice. To do otherwise amongst certain communities allows crime to flourish, to the detriment of those communities. We are seeing all around us what the de facto legalisation of some crimes is doing. If that laissez faire attitude is focused around communities because the police (to take a real example) face quotas for how many black youths they can search, what will happen to numbers carrying weapons, and what will the consequences be for that community?
The Westminster constituency loses the substantial rural area of North Kincardshire, but gains a chunk of Aberdeen Central Holyrood constituency.
There were 46 365 votes cast in July 24 in Aberdeen South on a 59.9% turnout, while 34 669 were cast on a 55% turnout in May's Holyrood election in Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardshire. So it is clear that the urban population gained is larger than the rural population lost.
The area gained was in Holyrood constituency Aberdeen Central which was heavily SNP (44%) with Lab in second and SCon on 13.9% in 4th place.
So the differences in boundaries favours an SNP hold. Particularly as SLab voters often seem reluctant to switch to SCon, and indeed often prefer the SNP when we look at transfers in local elections.
While the SCon are trying to make this a referendum on Oil and Gas, the Nationalist vote seems very sticky.
So I think SNP hold.
It is Reform switchers the SCons need to beat the SNP not SLab, combined the SCon and Reform votes were likely clearly ahead of the SNP vote based on the equivalent Holyrood seats
"Bank of England axed Churchill, Turing, and Austen from notes after being told they were 'not representative of the UK's cultural and natural diversity'"
Totally circular logic. Young people who've become largely ignorant of our history and where knowledge is shared, told that it is shameful and wicked, strangely don't like or appreciate representations of it. Therefore we take it off bank notes so even fewer people are aware of our history and the idea that it is shameful is further reinforced. The only thing that should change on the banknotes is they should add text in plain English explaining why these people are there.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
I note little interest in this case of a knife murder of a student with life sentence handed out yesterday. No calls for "cold hard anger" either. There are some similarities to the Novak case.
"Corrigan's father, Peter Corrigan, 50, was also jailed for two years after pleading guilty to assisting an offender after concealing high-visibility clothing that his son had been wearing at the time of the attack."
Taking a wild guess, I would suggest the lack of unusual levels of interest is due to the fact that the police rightly arrested the perpetrator rather than the victim.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
It must disappoint you greatly to hear that the PM doesn’t actually think black or non-white people are discriminated against by the police. Nor does the chief constable of Hampshire police.
Here’s another pattern. When the Manchester airport footage broke, Labour politicians rushed to judgment - as did many people on here. Turned out they had acted properly. And when an armed police officer shot Chris Kaba, he was disgracefully prosecuted by the CPS. That’s your pattern of behaviour mate.
I guess you could argue that Starmer taking the knee was where his PMship started to unravel (about four years before it began). I remember @isam being particularly scathing about it at the time, and so it possibly prepared the ground that made the accusation of "two-tier Keir" one that resonated among a significant minority after the Southport attacks. Which seemed to set the tone for Starmer's time as PM to go off the tracks from the very beginning.
The Nowak case wouldn’t have had nearly as much traction without the reaction to the Floyd murder. That’s what gets people angry. They know how different Starmer would be behaving had Nowak been black.
Because if he had been black it would have reflected a well documented pattern of discrimination based on ethnicity, whereas there is no evidence of systematic police brutality against white people and so this case is either the start of a shocking new trend or just an unfortunate example of the police getting things wrong. As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
The police have a policy of always believing compllaints of racism against white people. It's in writing. It's baked into their culture, and it's resulted in an innocent man's death. I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
The laws grant exceptions to carrying knives on the grounds of work or religious grounds or national dress, ie anyone who has a reasonable grounds for carrying them. This applies to eg Scots as well, I am intrigued to discover that I am now an ethnic minority! There are no laws against insulting anybody's religion. There is however a history of discrimination that certain efforts have been made to overcome, and I as a heterosexual middle class white man support these efforts. It's incredible to me that at the first sight of any efforts to equalize things there is the cry of unfair from people who have historically been the beneficiaries of this kind of inequality. Of course people may feel like life is loaded against them. But I would respectfully argue that minorities are not the reason. We might want to look at eg the wholesale assault on the working class starting from 1979 onwards to understand what is going on there. Of course spivvy city Boys like Farage want us to find alternative scapegoats.
The problem comes from trying to achieve statistically equal outcomes from statistically unequal populations. We have a very clear example of this leading to a tragic outcome in the case of Valdo Calocane:
On the live event front, TRiP's Rory Stewart has a couple of his own lined up in order to promote his latest book, something that once would have been done to a handful of bored employees at a series of bookshops and one talk at the Hay festival. Rory has said that TRiP pays him more than he has ever earned, more than £1 million a year iirc. This may also explain why so many podcasts are now running.
The Rest in Football team (Lineker, Shearer and Big Meeks) will be covering the World Cup daily on Netflix, no doubt for a significantly higher fee than Match of the Day.
It is a funny thing. We are told doom-scrolling TikTok has destroyed the nation's attention span yet people are watching or listening to podcasts lasting an hour or more.
Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I think the French system is better, with 1 child guaranteed to half the estate, two children 2/3 of the estate etc.
In the UK only children financially dependent on their deceased parent can claim for part of the estate if not included in their will
You might be too young to remember that the EU (or EEC's or Common Market's) controversial and expensive CAP system of butter mountains and wine lakes was often blamed on the French inheritance system leading to a proliferation of farms too small to be commercially viable. Whether there was anything in that, well, that's another matter.
The Westminster constituency loses the substantial rural area of North Kincardshire, but gains a chunk of Aberdeen Central Holyrood constituency.
There were 46 365 votes cast in July 24 in Aberdeen South on a 59.9% turnout, while 34 669 were cast on a 55% turnout in May's Holyrood election in Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardshire. So it is clear that the urban population gained is larger than the rural population lost.
The area gained was in Holyrood constituency Aberdeen Central which was heavily SNP (44%) with Lab in second and SCon on 13.9% in 4th place.
So the differences in boundaries favours an SNP hold. Particularly as SLab voters often seem reluctant to switch to SCon, and indeed often prefer the SNP when we look at transfers in local elections.
While the SCon are trying to make this a referendum on Oil and Gas, the Nationalist vote seems very sticky.
So I think SNP hold.
It is Reform switchers the SCons need to beat the SNP not SLab, combined the SCon and Reform votes were likely clearly ahead of the SNP vote based on the equivalent Holyrood seats
Of course, we won't know until much later in the year what has happened. But I question the assertion that many are re-considering or even cancelling trips. Some might, but I would wager any variation in tourist numbers would be single digit % at most.
About 4 million British people visit the US a year, so 1% of them is still 40,000. I'd call 40,000 "many".
I’m one of them, and will be going to Greece instead
Comments
And Russian asset.
What's the excuse now?
One of the most iconic horse races of the year and this year carrying a £1 million prize for the owners though given the ownerships of the favoured runners, you'd be inclined to think the £1 million would be back of the sofa cash.
On the evidence of today's races, the ground is certainly on the soft side. The favourite BENVENUTO CELLINI couldn't cope with an autumnal bog at Doncaster but won on soft at Killarney and I think he has a serious chance.
I've backed BAY OF BRILLIANCE each way and while there are 14 going to post, five have very little chance on all known form.
While the Derby is the feature, the Coronation Cup looks a wonderful race with the world's best middle distance horse CALANDAGAN seeking revenge against the last horse to beat him (in this race last year) JAN BRUEGHEL. The ease in the ground makes me think the latter might confirm places.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c99l9j4z9xyo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFq4E9XTueY
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fewer-foreigners-visited-us-2025-global-tourism-spending-rose-2026-01-14/
"The United States registered a 6% drop in foreign visitors in 2025 even as global tourism overrode concerns about saturation in some locations to generate a 6.7% rise in spending compared to the previous year..
As foreign tourism in the U.S. dipped, the world's third most visited country saw foreign tourists spend 7% less as arrivals from Canada, Mexico and Europe fell, according to WTTC estimates.
However, spending by domestic tourists offset this. The U.S. is the world's largest travel and tourism economy."
"Lib Dem Roger Harmer new Birmingham City Council leader"
In coalition with Greens and Independents. Such moderation.
https://www.statista.com/chart/35595/change-in-international-visitors-to-the-united-states/
(The wealthier suburbs, for example, Bellevue, Kirkland, and Redmond, do better than Seattle on these issues.)
"French billionaire calls for Napoleonic law change to disinherit children
Father of five says inheritance rules an attack on personal liberty" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/06/04/french-billionaire-napoleonic-law-change-disinherit
But that's 2025, not 2026.
https://www.itv.com/watch/buffy-the-vampire-slayer/10a5896
"open prostitution and drugs use" A little bit of home
1930s Germany here we come.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/mediabias/?query-47-page=2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberdeen_Deeside_and_North_Kincardine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberdeen_South_(UK_Parliament_constituency)
The Westminster constituency loses the substantial rural area of North Kincardshire, but gains a chunk of Aberdeen Central Holyrood constituency.
There were 46 365 votes cast in July 24 in Aberdeen South on a 59.9% turnout, while 34 669 were cast on a 55% turnout in May's Holyrood election in Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardshire. So it is clear that the urban population gained is larger than the rural population lost.
The area gained was in Holyrood constituency Aberdeen Central which was heavily SNP (44%) with Lab in second and SCon on 13.9% in 4th place.
So the differences in boundaries favours an SNP hold. Particularly as SLab voters often seem reluctant to switch to SCon, and indeed often prefer the SNP when we look at transfers in local elections.
While the SCon are trying to make this a referendum on Oil and Gas, the Nationalist vote seems very sticky.
So I think SNP hold.
As a white person I am genuinely perplexed at how other white people are being so weird about this. No doubt the extremely online will have some sort of explanation which will all make perfect sense.
Well I am, anyway.
As the trope from the Hackerverse goes, if you want to launch a radical Grand Design, you have to do it from a library with lots of leather-bound books on the shelves.
Rachel Reeves is those leather-bound books.
BBC News - Man who stabbed student to death in Cambridge is jailed for life - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8p08e3jz0o?app-referrer=deep-link
https://bsky.app/profile/mattwardman.bsky.social/post/3miy3xu57rc2m
I won't be going to the USA again until things change there.
They didn't watch it as they won't watch the BBC, but that's what everyone is saying.
I am not making this up by the way.
I don't think that's in question.
More broadly, my view is that it reflects the state's hierarchy of identity. There are laws that the state must consider its impact on ethnic minorities. There are rules that ethnic minorities must be prioritised for interviews for jobs. My own place of work has an apprenticeship scheme which is only open to non-whites. There are, it turns out, special laws that certain ethnic minorities are allowed to carry offensive weapons. There are laws against insulting tbe religion of a particular minority. There are very deliberate attempts not to treat everyone equally. It perplexes me that you cannot see how this sort of thing might rankle.
They get away with all kinds of stuff that in education would get you escorted off the property and barred from teaching, on a seemingly regular basis.
No one appears to be joining this together, rather than cherry picking cases which align with their political viewpoint.
And, of course, it's a difficult job.
But so is education.
Again, I don’t want to minimise anything, but we all have a responsibility to be as accurate as possible given the court of digital opinion has already convicted without all the facts.
They didn't watch it as they won't watch the BBC, but that's what everyone is saying.
I am not making this up by the way!”
Yes you are.
I am not Labour let alone Burnham supporter but the Reform candidate was less like a Rabbit in the Headlights than one that had just been run over.
Peter.
In general, this is a difficult line for a foreign leader to take - but not that difficult. The correct approach is "I value x and I believe the voters ot country y do too, but this is a matter purely for the voters of country y and our friendship with country y will.continue regardless."
I guess the abortion killed her inner child.
"They had that George Floyd thing so we'll make this like that for us. That'll teach them."
You can see this with the demands that Starmer 'takes the knee' for Henry. There's a definite trolling edge to it.
So, I don't know. Is it really understandable anger about double standards? Or is it rather infantile passive aggression from an ignorant insecure bunch of numbskulls?
Firstly the pathologist at the trial (as quoted by the judge in the sentencing remarks) said that the chest wound was not treatable due to the rapid loss of blood internally, so whatever the police did could not have saved Novak.
Secondly, it is far from clear that the police made their errors due to racism rather than from being misled by the information that they had and from Digwa and his family who were present at the scene.
That is why we need to wait for the enquiry into the death.
Also, next week Digwa and his family are on trial for possession of weapons, and that case should clarify the legality of the knife that was used in the murder. Digwa's Kirpan was under his clothing and not used in the attack.
Of course people may feel like life is loaded against them. But I would respectfully argue that minorities are not the reason. We might want to look at eg the wholesale assault on the working class starting from 1979 onwards to understand what is going on there. Of course spivvy city Boys like Farage want us to find alternative scapegoats.
Please withdraw.
That is entirely the reaction from pro Reform Facebook feeds. It's entirely Trumpian.
I've been here a long time and don't lie.
I don't like being called a liar by arrogant posters with 64 posts.
Your post is everything that’s wrong with the Internet.
The police officer who handcuffed Novak took the handcuffs off 1 minute later and commenced CPR, so there was not a delay to treatment of more than a couple of minutes.
Death is only pronounced when CPR and other attempts at resicitation cease. In a young man that may well be an hour, but it does not mean that more could have been done in that hour.
No doubt @williamglenn has access to other medical evidence not available to the rest of us.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/23/nottingham-killer-valdo-calocane-race-mental-health-inquiry
Nottingham killer was not sectioned because of his race, inquiry told
Both were unknown Territory and in each case the US like markets wanted as much as possible, stability, predictability and continuity.
What makes this different as with intervening with backing Boris or Farage here or Orban in Hungary is a willingness to intervene directly in day to day politics and alter their course.
Still on the bright side, even if some people would welcome it, they haven’t sent Delta Force to kidnap Starmer and installed Farage!
Peter.
Both were unknown Territory and in each case the US like markets wanted as much as possible, stability, predictability and continuity.
What makes this different as with intervening with backing Boris or Farage here or Orban in Hungary is a willingness to intervene directly in day to day politics and alter their course.
Still on the bright side, even if some people would welcome it, they haven’t sent Delta Force to kidnap Starmer and installed Farage!
Peter.
The fuel situation in Russia is becoming a major crisis.
Fact is. Reform talking to itself are painting QT as a triumph for Kenyon which will lead to his comfortable victory. They've (been instructed?) to move on from the Nowak case.
Setting up the stolen by election narrative is their next move.
Again.
They asked the question are we biased because of race but it was one of many factors they would have considered in a case like that.
One of the issues psychologists have to consider is if the more of our culture or upbringing or even background are directly applicable to Thor patient so they can be sure they are making the right decision for them. It’s not about Statistically Equal Outcomes it’s about Patient Centred Care.
Peter.
In the case of the police, their race action plan says that they aim to achieve equity, defined as equality of outcome rather than equality of treatment.
So treating minorities differently needs to be addressed somehow. The issue is in practice it’s damned near impossible to do.
I know someone who works in the Club scene in Glasgow and who regularly meets people dealing with drugs; usual a bad batch, or taking too much. The most common taking more before the first one has kicked in.
There experience is that when the Police get involved the quality of their response varies wildly from incident to incident depending on the officers and they reckon that in about a quarter of cases they make a hash of it (no pun intended!)
For me some good officers made a basic error that they would never have made if they had attended that incident a dozen times. It will haunt them for the rest of their lives and they will forever wish they could do it again.
I know one serving officer who hates body cams. He knows why they are a good idea in theory but in practice he thinks they are becoming like VAR; there every decision is going to be scrutinised and criticised by an army of amateur armchair pundits.
Watching the last week I am starting to agree with them.
Peter.
"Corrigan's father, Peter Corrigan, 50, was also jailed for two years after pleading guilty to assisting an offender after concealing high-visibility clothing that his son had been wearing at the time of the attack."
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15878403/Bank-England-axed-Churchill-Turing-Austen-notes-told-not-representative-UKs-cultural-natural-diversity.html
In the UK only children financially dependent on their deceased parent can claim for part of the estate if not included in their will
Here’s another pattern. When the Manchester airport footage broke, Labour politicians rushed to judgment - as did many people on here. Turned out they had acted properly. And when an armed police officer shot Chris Kaba, he was disgracefully prosecuted by the CPS. That’s your pattern of behaviour mate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo
Producer of The Rest is … podcasts reports sales of £37.9m, boosted by rise in subscriptions and live events
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2026/jun/05/gary-lineker-goalhanger-fastest-growing-business-podcasts
On the live event front, TRiP's Rory Stewart has a couple of his own lined up in order to promote his latest book, something that once would have been done to a handful of bored employees at a series of bookshops and one talk at the Hay festival. Rory has said that TRiP pays him more than he has ever earned, more than £1 million a year iirc. This may also explain why so many podcasts are now running.
The Rest in Football team (Lineker, Shearer and Big Meeks) will be covering the World Cup daily on Netflix, no doubt for a significantly higher fee than Match of the Day.
It is a funny thing. We are told doom-scrolling TikTok has destroyed the nation's attention span yet people are watching or listening to podcasts lasting an hour or more.