Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.
Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.
I'm not fully in one camp or the other on the social media ban. However, I've realised I'm utterly relaxed about it because, like almost everything the government announces, it's going to be backtracked-on, u-turned, u-turned again, filibustered and ultimately abandoned.
Yes. The dying days of every Prime Minister are filled with announcements of things that don't happen, and it will only be more so with Starmer.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
Last time I looked, there weren't any Iranian companies making equipment for the Iranian military in the UK. If there are, I'll be happy to join the protests against them.
The protests I am thinking about are the ones in the street every weekend.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
But direct action against property is right there in the Act as item 2 b.
There's no doubt it was a political act so the only doubt it seems to me is whether 1b applies ie. designed to influence the government or the public.
I'm not saying I support that view, merely pointing out that it is the law and I can see why the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
I mostly agree with you, but the point about the 'rule of law' is that it applies to everyone, it applies to people who don't agree with some specifics of it, it applies to people who are arrogant enough to think that their personal superior views constitute a defence to GBH and other crimes, and judges in sentencing have to apply it whatever their personal opinions.
The rule of law is boring in all those ways. The people who only like it when they happen to approve have missed the point and lost the plot.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
But direct action against property is right there in the Act as item 2 b.
There's no doubt it was a political act so the only doubt it seems to me is whether 1b applies ie. designed to influence the government or the public.
I'm not saying I support that view, merely pointing out that it is the law and I can see why the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines.
And we are back to the way the government controls the law - the modulation of charging.
It is frequently the case that people are charged with a lesser crime than evidence supports. This is the government trying to reduce the prison population.
On occasion, it becomes policy (via the CPS) to throw the book at certain people. See some of the race rioters. And see Palestinian Action.
It’s all entirely legal, but it certainly isn’t the completely hands off, impartial justice that some people seems to think happens.
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.
Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.
It’s not a carve out for BlueSky. Lots of smaller social media sites used little by kids were not directly covered by the legislation. BlueSky is, AIUI, voluntarily following the same rules in Australia anyway.
I've been out all morning and catching up about what's been said by Labour, Reform, Tories and others.
What's MASSIVE and nothing to do with the content, possibly due to panic scheduling by some, but the Content can only be read by what you can see, hear and find.Is the exposure or lack of it.
Of course the incumbent Government gets priority whoever they are but Reform on immigration and economic issues pertaining to immigration have totally drowned out the Tories defence agenda.
It's striking just how irrelevant the Tories are becoming even with Core past Tory supporting media.
It beggars belief though that whoever is advising Badenoch coukd really believe that after 14 years they could dare to give ultimatums to Labour on the defence topic.
Jenrick has totally outshine his past Party on exposure and that trend if it becomes endemic will see the extinction of the Tories as a main stream Party.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
It seems to me that most non activists who possess a conscience about the world broadly want to support good people across every divide and oppose bad people across every divide also. This must be the largest tribe in existence, and for various reasons impossible to turn into a 'cause' with any meaning. This may explain their non activism. FWIW it mostly explains my approach to things.
But it means that the tribal factionalists do most of the organising and most of the propaganda and claim the attention.
True. However to pick one cause to focus on is a perfectly respectable option imo. I find "but why aren't they out protesting and direct acting against xyz as well?" from people not doing any of that against anything a rather weak line of attack.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
I mostly agree with you, but the point about the 'rule of law' is that it applies to everyone, it applies to people who don't agree with some specifics of it, it applies to people who are arrogant enough to think that their personal superior views constitute a defence to GBH and other crimes, and judges in sentencing have to apply it whatever their personal opinions.
The rule of law is boring in all those ways. The people who only like it when they happen to approve have missed the point and lost the plot.
I think there is an argument that definitions of crimes and laws have become so broad that the government has far too much latitude in deciding what to charge people with.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
Last time I looked, there weren't any Iranian companies making equipment for the Iranian military in the UK. If there are, I'll be happy to join the protests against them.
The protests I am thinking about are the ones in the street every weekend.
Those aren’t generally organised by Palestine Action (although they may entail people protesting about the inclusion of Palestine Action on the list of terrorist bodies). They’re usually organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, a Trotskyite front operation.
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.
Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.
It’s not a carve out for BlueSky. Lots of smaller social media sites used little by kids were not directly covered by the legislation. BlueSky is, AIUI, voluntarily following the same rules in Australia anyway.
So if YouTube is to be banned for under 16s doesn't that mean that anyone over 16 will have to prove who they are before being able to access YouTube ?
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.
Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.
It’s not a carve out for BlueSky. Lots of smaller social media sites used little by kids were not directly covered by the legislation. BlueSky is, AIUI, voluntarily following the same rules in Australia anyway.
Is PB on Ze List?
Given the highly corrosive nature of PB to society, it has now been banned in 93 countries.
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.
Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.
It’s not a carve out for BlueSky. Lots of smaller social media sites used little by kids were not directly covered by the legislation. BlueSky is, AIUI, voluntarily following the same rules in Australia anyway.
Is PB on Ze List?
Given the highly corrosive nature of PB to society, it has now been banned in 93 countries.
Quite. I use a VPN with multiple hops in the other 100 countries, in consequence.
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
I suspect it gets on the list because of stories about people being "radicalized" as YouTube feeds them steadily more and more extreme versions of whatever political views they started out with. YouTube does share a couple of characteristics with other social media that Disney et al do not:
1: more or less anybody can put content up on the platform, and there is not really any pre-scrutiny of it 2: the app is strongly incentivised to show you the content that gets greater engagement, which often means stuff that gets you worked up
You can also use youtube like TV or like a paid streaming service, where you have some favourite channels and just watch the latest episode of whatever, so it is partly in each camp.
So if YouTube is to be banned for under 16s doesn't that mean that anyone over 16 will have to prove who they are before being able to access YouTube ?
There will have to be some sort of log-in system, yes.
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
I suspect it gets on the list because of stories about people being "radicalized" as YouTube feeds them steadily more and more extreme versions of whatever political views they started out with. YouTube does share a couple of characteristics with other social media that Disney et al do not:
1: more or less anybody can put content up on the platform, and there is not really any pre-scrutiny of it 2: the app is strongly incentivised to show you the content that gets greater engagement, which often means stuff that gets you worked up
You can also use youtube like TV or like a paid streaming service, where you have some favourite channels and just watch the latest episode of whatever, so it is partly in each camp.
YouTube Kids is a subplatform different to main YouTube, however. It has not been banned in Australia.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
I mostly agree with you, but the point about the 'rule of law' is that it applies to everyone, it applies to people who don't agree with some specifics of it, it applies to people who are arrogant enough to think that their personal superior views constitute a defence to GBH and other crimes, and judges in sentencing have to apply it whatever their personal opinions.
The rule of law is boring in all those ways. The people who only like it when they happen to approve have missed the point and lost the plot.
I think there is an argument that definitions of crimes and laws have become so broad that the government has far too much latitude in deciding what to charge people with.
So if YouTube is to be banned for under 16s doesn't that mean that anyone over 16 will have to prove who they are before being able to access YouTube ?
That would be the implication.
I'm pretty sure my Google account is more than 16 years old anyway.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
Last time I looked, there weren't any Iranian companies making equipment for the Iranian military in the UK. If there are, I'll be happy to join the protests against them.
The protests I am thinking about are the ones in the street every weekend.
Those aren’t generally organised by Palestine Action (although they may entail people protesting about the inclusion of Palestine Action on the list of terrorist bodies). They’re usually organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, a Trotskyite front operation.
Missing my point - why are so many people obsessed with Palestinian suffering but not other suffering round the world? One wonders if its secretly just because of anti Israeli hatred.
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.
Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.
It’s not a carve out for BlueSky. Lots of smaller social media sites used little by kids were not directly covered by the legislation. BlueSky is, AIUI, voluntarily following the same rules in Australia anyway.
Is PB on Ze List?
Given the highly corrosive nature of PB to society, it has now been banned in 93 countries.
Ruining young minds. Imagine the impact on an impressionable 10 year old of coming across that debate on roundabout etiquette that raged on here for the best part of 3 days last month.
IIRC you can start applying to join the army at 15 and some months (though you can’t actually join until 16)
Or has that been superseded?
You can apply to go on the electoral register before 18 (and presumably the same will apply when the age is reduced to 16), but can’t vote until you’re 18.
But so what? Presumably you will be able to apply to read X before it’s actually your 16th birthday.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
But direct action against property is right there in the Act as item 2 b.
There's no doubt it was a political act so the only doubt it seems to me is whether 1b applies ie. designed to influence the government or the public.
I'm not saying I support that view, merely pointing out that it is the law and I can see why the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines.
Yeah I'm not criticizing the judge, I am criticizing the law. I don't think that smashing up an arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and war crimes is terrorism. The fact they had a political motivation doesn't strike me as making their actions worse than if it had been mindless vandalism. For sure do them for criminal damage and GBH. But if they are terrorists then the word has lost all meaning and the law is ludicrous. I was thinking of talking about my love of stop motion animation and hence my support for plasticene action but then I wondered whether this might create legal problems for the site. That is the extent of the absurdity of the current law and its chilling effects on free speech.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
Last time I looked, there weren't any Iranian companies making equipment for the Iranian military in the UK. If there are, I'll be happy to join the protests against them.
The protests I am thinking about are the ones in the street every weekend.
Those aren’t generally organised by Palestine Action (although they may entail people protesting about the inclusion of Palestine Action on the list of terrorist bodies). They’re usually organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, a Trotskyite front operation.
Missing my point - why are so many people obsessed with Palestinian suffering but not other suffering round the world? One wonders if its secretly just because of anti Israeli hatred.
I get your point. Your point would be better made if you got the details correct.
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
I suspect it gets on the list because of stories about people being "radicalized" as YouTube feeds them steadily more and more extreme versions of whatever political views they started out with. YouTube does share a couple of characteristics with other social media that Disney et al do not:
1: more or less anybody can put content up on the platform, and there is not really any pre-scrutiny of it 2: the app is strongly incentivised to show you the content that gets greater engagement, which often means stuff that gets you worked up
You can also use youtube like TV or like a paid streaming service, where you have some favourite channels and just watch the latest episode of whatever, so it is partly in each camp.
YouTube Kids is a subplatform different to main YouTube, however. It has not been banned in Australia.
A few weeks ago, my smart TV began insisting I need to login to view Youtube there.
I've been out all morning and catching up about what's been said by Labour, Reform, Tories and others.
What's MASSIVE and nothing to do with the content, possibly due to panic scheduling by some, but the Content can only be read by what you can see, hear and find.Is the exposure or lack of it.
Of course the incumbent Government gets priority whoever they are but Reform on immigration and economic issues pertaining to immigration have totally drowned out the Tories defence agenda.
It's striking just how irrelevant the Tories are becoming even with Core past Tory supporting media.
It beggars belief though that whoever is advising Badenoch coukd really believe that after 14 years they could dare to give ultimatums to Labour on the defence topic.
Jenrick has totally outshine his past Party on exposure and that trend if it becomes endemic will see the extinction of the Tories as a main stream Party.
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.
Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.
It’s not a carve out for BlueSky. Lots of smaller social media sites used little by kids were not directly covered by the legislation. BlueSky is, AIUI, voluntarily following the same rules in Australia anyway.
Is PB on Ze List?
Given the highly corrosive nature of PB to society, it has now been banned in 93 countries.
Ruining young minds. Imagine the impact on an impressionable 10 year old of coming across that debate on roundabout etiquette that raged on here for the best part of 3 days last month.
Someone is still holding out, in that tank on the Lithuanian roundabout.
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.
Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.
It’s not a carve out for BlueSky. Lots of smaller social media sites used little by kids were not directly covered by the legislation. BlueSky is, AIUI, voluntarily following the same rules in Australia anyway.
Is PB on Ze List?
Given the highly corrosive nature of PB to society, it has now been banned in 93 countries.
Ruining young minds. Imagine the impact on an impressionable 10 year old of coming across that debate on roundabout etiquette that raged on here for the best part of 3 days last month.
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
I suspect it gets on the list because of stories about people being "radicalized" as YouTube feeds them steadily more and more extreme versions of whatever political views they started out with. YouTube does share a couple of characteristics with other social media that Disney et al do not:
1: more or less anybody can put content up on the platform, and there is not really any pre-scrutiny of it 2: the app is strongly incentivised to show you the content that gets greater engagement, which often means stuff that gets you worked up
You can also use youtube like TV or like a paid streaming service, where you have some favourite channels and just watch the latest episode of whatever, so it is partly in each camp.
Was out a Beaulieu yesterday with the wife and the three year old. Lovely day, interesting stuff to do. At one point came across a family with a 1 and half year old in a push chair with a phone on the go. Some sort of game of something, god knows what. At 1 and a half! FFS.
My wife and I worry about how much we use devices in front of our son and he is scarily good at operating stuff (like the DVD player*). But people need to wobble their heads a bit if they think good parenting is leaving a kid looking at a mobile phone at 18 months...
*Streaming is a con. So much stuff is an additional charge to what you already pay that we are now buying DVD's (ludicrously cheap, like a Leon coffee can, from ebay or vinted).
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.
Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.
It’s not a carve out for BlueSky. Lots of smaller social media sites used little by kids were not directly covered by the legislation. BlueSky is, AIUI, voluntarily following the same rules in Australia anyway.
Is PB on Ze List?
Given the highly corrosive nature of PB to society, it has now been banned in 93 countries.
Ruining young minds. Imagine the impact on an impressionable 10 year old of coming across that debate on roundabout etiquette that raged on here for the best part of 3 days last month.
Always give way to the right
I think Rupert Lowe says the same thing… possibly in a different context.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
I mostly agree with you, but the point about the 'rule of law' is that it applies to everyone, it applies to people who don't agree with some specifics of it, it applies to people who are arrogant enough to think that their personal superior views constitute a defence to GBH and other crimes, and judges in sentencing have to apply it whatever their personal opinions.
The rule of law is boring in all those ways. The people who only like it when they happen to approve have missed the point and lost the plot.
Up to a point. Sometimes you have to conclude that the law is just wrong. You can either wait around for the law to change, campaign to change it, or break the law and be prepared to face the consequences. I don't think that following the law at all times is necessarily the best course of action and I don't think most other people do, either.
Is Youtube Kids banned ?, my daughter enjoys watching Baby Shark, Miss Rachel, Cocomelon (OK We can ban that one ) and various other stuff aimed at the 4 year old market on there... Seems an odd one as it is not really a social media company, or if it is you'll have to stick Netflix, Disney, Prime, Paramount, Hulu etc in there too.
It was not in Australia and presumably won’t be here.
Ok - The carveout in Australia for Bluesky looks frankly weird though.
It’s not a carve out for BlueSky. Lots of smaller social media sites used little by kids were not directly covered by the legislation. BlueSky is, AIUI, voluntarily following the same rules in Australia anyway.
Is PB on Ze List?
Given the highly corrosive nature of PB to society, it has now been banned in 93 countries.
Ruining young minds. Imagine the impact on an impressionable 10 year old of coming across that debate on roundabout etiquette that raged on here for the best part of 3 days last month.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
But direct action against property is right there in the Act as item 2 b.
There's no doubt it was a political act so the only doubt it seems to me is whether 1b applies ie. designed to influence the government or the public.
I'm not saying I support that view, merely pointing out that it is the law and I can see why the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines.
Yeah I'm not criticizing the judge, I am criticizing the law. I don't think that smashing up an arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and war crimes is terrorism. The fact they had a political motivation doesn't strike me as making their actions worse than if it had been mindless vandalism. For sure do them for criminal damage and GBH. But if they are terrorists then the word has lost all meaning and the law is ludicrous. I was thinking of talking about my love of stop motion animation and hence my support for plasticene action but then I wondered whether this might create legal problems for the site. That is the extent of the absurdity of the current law and its chilling effects on free speech.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
Last time I looked, there weren't any Iranian companies making equipment for the Iranian military in the UK. If there are, I'll be happy to join the protests against them.
The protests I am thinking about are the ones in the street every weekend.
Those aren’t generally organised by Palestine Action (although they may entail people protesting about the inclusion of Palestine Action on the list of terrorist bodies). They’re usually organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, a Trotskyite front operation.
Missing my point - why are so many people obsessed with Palestinian suffering but not other suffering round the world? One wonders if its secretly just because of anti Israeli hatred.
I get your point. Your point would be better made if you got the details correct.
What details did I get wrong? I didn't mention Palestine Action. I just said about protesting about Palestine.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
But direct action against property is right there in the Act as item 2 b.
There's no doubt it was a political act so the only doubt it seems to me is whether 1b applies ie. designed to influence the government or the public.
I'm not saying I support that view, merely pointing out that it is the law and I can see why the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines.
Yeah I'm not criticizing the judge, I am criticizing the law. I don't think that smashing up an arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and war crimes is terrorism. The fact they had a political motivation doesn't strike me as making their actions worse than if it had been mindless vandalism. For sure do them for criminal damage and GBH. But if they are terrorists then the word has lost all meaning and the law is ludicrous. I was thinking of talking about my love of stop motion animation and hence my support for plasticene action but then I wondered whether this might create legal problems for the site. That is the extent of the absurdity of the current law and its chilling effects on free speech.
If you read the bit that cyclefree linked to you will discover that they HAVE been done for criminal damage and GBH. That is what they have been found guilty of.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
I mostly agree with you, but the point about the 'rule of law' is that it applies to everyone, it applies to people who don't agree with some specifics of it, it applies to people who are arrogant enough to think that their personal superior views constitute a defence to GBH and other crimes, and judges in sentencing have to apply it whatever their personal opinions.
The rule of law is boring in all those ways. The people who only like it when they happen to approve have missed the point and lost the plot.
Up to a point. Sometimes you have to conclude that the law is just wrong. You can either wait around for the law to change, campaign to change it, or break the law and be prepared to face the consequences. I don't think that following the law at all times is necessarily the best course of action and I don't think most other people do, either.
If people hadn't broken the law and refused to pay the poll tax we would still have it.
Nobody is happy with its replacement, council tax, but it's survived because no-one has been willing to court unpopularity by changing or replacing it.
So if YouTube is to be banned for under 16s doesn't that mean that anyone over 16 will have to prove who they are before being able to access YouTube ?
Yes, but since government wants Digital ID cards anyway, they probably see this as a feature, not a bug. The corollary of proving you are not under 16 is indeed proving you are over 16.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
Last time I looked, there weren't any Iranian companies making equipment for the Iranian military in the UK. If there are, I'll be happy to join the protests against them.
The protests I am thinking about are the ones in the street every weekend.
Those aren’t generally organised by Palestine Action (although they may entail people protesting about the inclusion of Palestine Action on the list of terrorist bodies). They’re usually organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, a Trotskyite front operation.
Missing my point - why are so many people obsessed with Palestinian suffering but not other suffering round the world? One wonders if its secretly just because of anti Israeli hatred.
I get your point. Your point would be better made if you got the details correct.
What details did I get wrong? I didn't mention Palestine Action. I just said about protesting about Palestine.
In a discussion of Palestine Action, you started talking about different sorts of actions by different groups in a somewhat confusing manner.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
I mostly agree with you, but the point about the 'rule of law' is that it applies to everyone, it applies to people who don't agree with some specifics of it, it applies to people who are arrogant enough to think that their personal superior views constitute a defence to GBH and other crimes, and judges in sentencing have to apply it whatever their personal opinions.
The rule of law is boring in all those ways. The people who only like it when they happen to approve have missed the point and lost the plot.
Up to a point. Sometimes you have to conclude that the law is just wrong. You can either wait around for the law to change, campaign to change it, or break the law and be prepared to face the consequences. I don't think that following the law at all times is necessarily the best course of action and I don't think most other people do, either.
In the current case, with the nonsense of locking up folk for posters saying "I support Palestine Action" I think people are being stupid. You can still protest about the UK government involvement in Israel/Palestine. You can also protest that you think the government was wrong to Proscribe Palestine Action (I note that government has won that case, though).
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
That’s not the full picture.
The social tariff gives you the basic package so if you’re on full fibre you move onto the 50 to 150 Mbps package rather the top tier packages of 900 to 1600 Mbps.
It’s useful if you’re 3 months into a 24 month package and you can downgrade without penalty.
50Mbps is more than nearly everyone needs - unless you are running several video conferences in the same house while the kids try to download the entire internet.
The upselling of faster and faster connections - which aren't actually used - is a great money spinner for the ISPs.
The number of times I’ve tried to convince customers that the higher tiers of speed are totally irrelevant to their actual internet usage is crazy. Any usage beyond 50Mbps is unusual for a family home, even with half a dozen people watching video simultaneously.
There's a phenomenon here that's similar to the one explored in the "Eat well for less" show.
Of course commercial businesses upsell. It's their duty to maximise profits. But it leads to consumers paying more for things they don't need/use/benefit from.
(There's a line I use when discussing industrial chemistry, that the purpose of a chemical factory is to make profits, not chemicals. No shame in that, but important to understand why they do what they do.)
So my question about social tariffs is how much they are subsidised, and how much are they like supermarket basics brands where you have to fill in a form to be allowed to buy them? I'm guessing a bit of both.
(Which reminds me, I need to do the haggle dance with my broadband provider. I'd much rather pay a consistent fair price and forget about it, but that's not allowed, it seems.)
Recently I cancelled my Independent subscription (or maybe one of the others). It said OK. Then it said why not press this button to rollover your subscription at a third of the price, so I'm now only wasting a third of the money on a news outlet I barely read. But the point is there was no haggling. They've automated the human touch out of the process.
Within a couple of hours of posting this, I received an email from the Independent. I wonder what is their PB username.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
But direct action against property is right there in the Act as item 2 b.
There's no doubt it was a political act so the only doubt it seems to me is whether 1b applies ie. designed to influence the government or the public.
I'm not saying I support that view, merely pointing out that it is the law and I can see why the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines.
Yeah I'm not criticizing the judge, I am criticizing the law. I don't think that smashing up an arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and war crimes is terrorism. The fact they had a political motivation doesn't strike me as making their actions worse than if it had been mindless vandalism. For sure do them for criminal damage and GBH. But if they are terrorists then the word has lost all meaning and the law is ludicrous. I was thinking of talking about my love of stop motion animation and hence my support for plasticene action but then I wondered whether this might create legal problems for the site. That is the extent of the absurdity of the current law and its chilling effects on free speech.
Well how do you define terrorism then?
Seeking to create a state of terror to achieve political ends?
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
Last time I looked, there weren't any Iranian companies making equipment for the Iranian military in the UK. If there are, I'll be happy to join the protests against them.
The protests I am thinking about are the ones in the street every weekend.
Those aren’t generally organised by Palestine Action (although they may entail people protesting about the inclusion of Palestine Action on the list of terrorist bodies). They’re usually organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, a Trotskyite front operation.
Missing my point - why are so many people obsessed with Palestinian suffering but not other suffering round the world? One wonders if its secretly just because of anti Israeli hatred.
I get your point. Your point would be better made if you got the details correct.
What details did I get wrong? I didn't mention Palestine Action. I just said about protesting about Palestine.
In a discussion of Palestine Action, you started talking about different sorts of actions by different groups in a somewhat confusing manner.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
But direct action against property is right there in the Act as item 2 b.
There's no doubt it was a political act so the only doubt it seems to me is whether 1b applies ie. designed to influence the government or the public.
I'm not saying I support that view, merely pointing out that it is the law and I can see why the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines.
Yeah I'm not criticizing the judge, I am criticizing the law. I don't think that smashing up an arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and war crimes is terrorism. The fact they had a political motivation doesn't strike me as making their actions worse than if it had been mindless vandalism. For sure do them for criminal damage and GBH. But if they are terrorists then the word has lost all meaning and the law is ludicrous. I was thinking of talking about my love of stop motion animation and hence my support for plasticene action but then I wondered whether this might create legal problems for the site. That is the extent of the absurdity of the current law and its chilling effects on free speech.
Well how do you define terrorism then?
I would limit it to people who use violence against people in pursuit of a political cause. I would not include violence against property. The PA case where they got in a ruck with the police wouldn't count because the ruck was not the goal of the group, it was incidental (I would prosecute them fully for GBH etc, the political motivation is no more an excuse than it is an exacerbating factor). I don't think it should be a crime to say "I support Palestine Action", which is the result of calling them terrorists. The bar for terrorism has to be higher than that. Otherwise you are just insulting the victims of real, actual, terrorists.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
Last time I looked, there weren't any Iranian companies making equipment for the Iranian military in the UK. If there are, I'll be happy to join the protests against them.
The protests I am thinking about are the ones in the street every weekend.
Those aren’t generally organised by Palestine Action (although they may entail people protesting about the inclusion of Palestine Action on the list of terrorist bodies). They’re usually organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, a Trotskyite front operation.
Missing my point - why are so many people obsessed with Palestinian suffering but not other suffering round the world? One wonders if its secretly just because of anti Israeli hatred.
I get your point. Your point would be better made if you got the details correct.
What details did I get wrong? I didn't mention Palestine Action. I just said about protesting about Palestine.
In a discussion of Palestine Action, you started talking about different sorts of actions by different groups in a somewhat confusing manner.
Might have been confusing but it wasn't wrong.
Great. I apologise for any implication that you were wrong in your facts.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
You're missing a step. You should grind up the state school kids into mincemeat and bake them into pies, then feed them to the private school kids. An excellent source of protein and establishing beyond peradventure the social hierarchy which we all know and love.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
But direct action against property is right there in the Act as item 2 b.
There's no doubt it was a political act so the only doubt it seems to me is whether 1b applies ie. designed to influence the government or the public.
I'm not saying I support that view, merely pointing out that it is the law and I can see why the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines.
Yeah I'm not criticizing the judge, I am criticizing the law. I don't think that smashing up an arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and war crimes is terrorism. The fact they had a political motivation doesn't strike me as making their actions worse than if it had been mindless vandalism. For sure do them for criminal damage and GBH. But if they are terrorists then the word has lost all meaning and the law is ludicrous. I was thinking of talking about my love of stop motion animation and hence my support for plasticene action but then I wondered whether this might create legal problems for the site. That is the extent of the absurdity of the current law and its chilling effects on free speech.
If you read the bit that cyclefree linked to you will discover that they HAVE been done for criminal damage and GBH. That is what they have been found guilty of.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
We effectively had that at school at weekends. The regular house staff apart from the cooks didn’t work at weekends so the house was staffed for cleaning and serving lunch by local girls who attended sixth forms. They were affectionately called the “Tea Tarts” but everyone was otherwise totally respectful and well behaved and polite towards them.
I can only assume that this is satire.
Not in my experience. At the Public School nearest to me many of the waiting on jobs, even on weekday evenings are filled by pupils from the state comprehensive. This leaves a real problem when the public school offers classes for obscure subjects such as Latin to state school pupils. How can you have a class where some of the pupils really do wait on the others. Interestingly the state school head, some twenty years ago refused such offers for that very reason and was widely vilified. She was right IMHO
One of my best friends was offered a free place for their grandson at the said public school to which they retorted, No, we want him to be more than a bartender in a pub.
Hmmm. Genuine question.
How much autonomy do schools in the UK have over their school dinner organisation?
Could something like the Japanese model be tried here?
We already have something of an emphasis on locally produced ingredients? That may be easier in say Wales, where free meals are universal (or moving that way).
Unpopular opinion: we should drop the prevailing, mawkish 1950s "good hot meal" stuff, close the kitchens, and give the children sandwiches and fruit and a small slice of cake.
(I may be biased because my parents wouldn't (not couldn't) pay for school meals, so that's what I ate anyway...)
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
You're missing a step. You should grind up the state school kids into mincemeat and bake them into pies, then feed them to the private school kids. An excellent source of protein and establishing beyond peradventure the social hierarchy which we all know and love.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
But direct action against property is right there in the Act as item 2 b.
There's no doubt it was a political act so the only doubt it seems to me is whether 1b applies ie. designed to influence the government or the public.
I'm not saying I support that view, merely pointing out that it is the law and I can see why the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines.
Yeah I'm not criticizing the judge, I am criticizing the law. I don't think that smashing up an arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and war crimes is terrorism. The fact they had a political motivation doesn't strike me as making their actions worse than if it had been mindless vandalism. For sure do them for criminal damage and GBH. But if they are terrorists then the word has lost all meaning and the law is ludicrous. I was thinking of talking about my love of stop motion animation and hence my support for plasticene action but then I wondered whether this might create legal problems for the site. That is the extent of the absurdity of the current law and its chilling effects on free speech.
Well how do you define terrorism then?
Seeking to create a state of terror to achieve political ends?
How do you think the policewoman who was attacked with a sledgehammer might have felt? Terrified?
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
But direct action against property is right there in the Act as item 2 b.
There's no doubt it was a political act so the only doubt it seems to me is whether 1b applies ie. designed to influence the government or the public.
I'm not saying I support that view, merely pointing out that it is the law and I can see why the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines.
Yeah I'm not criticizing the judge, I am criticizing the law. I don't think that smashing up an arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and war crimes is terrorism. The fact they had a political motivation doesn't strike me as making their actions worse than if it had been mindless vandalism. For sure do them for criminal damage and GBH. But if they are terrorists then the word has lost all meaning and the law is ludicrous. I was thinking of talking about my love of stop motion animation and hence my support for plasticene action but then I wondered whether this might create legal problems for the site. That is the extent of the absurdity of the current law and its chilling effects on free speech.
If you read the bit that cyclefree linked to you will discover that they HAVE been done for criminal damage and GBH. That is what they have been found guilty of.
And then sentenced as terrorists.
No - terrorism as an aggravating factor. As racism might be in a murder case.
I believe part of the remarks of the judge on the Free Palestine ‘terrorists’ was that they were not the same as the Suffragettes because they violently attacked and destroyed property while the latter arsonists and bombers did not.
I love a bit of revisionist history as much as the next man, but..
Do you have a quote? Or is this from an Albanian black cab driver?
Some irony in PB’s chief anecdotalist asking for verification.
The Lady Chief Justice: Palestine Action was not a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, but used violence to destroy property
The suffragettes burned down country houses & train stations, bombed churches & sent letter bombs to politicians.
Yet another example of living in an Eternal Present. Reality is what the AI/Internet says it is, not what books in libraries or contemporaneous reports/pamphlets/cuttings says it is, nor what historians say it is.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
The weird thing is that for all the furore about Palestine I don't see 1/100th the amount for the actions of the Iran government. Do those people not matter to the "river to the sea' fanatics?
Last time I looked, there weren't any Iranian companies making equipment for the Iranian military in the UK. If there are, I'll be happy to join the protests against them.
The protests I am thinking about are the ones in the street every weekend.
Those aren’t generally organised by Palestine Action (although they may entail people protesting about the inclusion of Palestine Action on the list of terrorist bodies). They’re usually organised by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, a Trotskyite front operation.
Missing my point - why are so many people obsessed with Palestinian suffering but not other suffering round the world? One wonders if its secretly just because of anti Israeli hatred.
I get your point. Your point would be better made if you got the details correct.
What details did I get wrong? I didn't mention Palestine Action. I just said about protesting about Palestine.
In a discussion of Palestine Action, you started talking about different sorts of actions by different groups in a somewhat confusing manner.
Might have been confusing but it wasn't wrong.
Great. I apologise for any implication that you were wrong in your facts.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
You're missing a step. You should grind up the state school kids into mincemeat and bake them into pies, then feed them to the private school kids. An excellent source of protein and establishing beyond peradventure the social hierarchy which we all know and love.
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
We effectively had that at school at weekends. The regular house staff apart from the cooks didn’t work at weekends so the house was staffed for cleaning and serving lunch by local girls who attended sixth forms. They were affectionately called the “Tea Tarts” but everyone was otherwise totally respectful and well behaved and polite towards them.
I can only assume that this is satire.
Not in my experience. At the Public School nearest to me many of the waiting on jobs, even on weekday evenings are filled by pupils from the state comprehensive. This leaves a real problem when the public school offers classes for obscure subjects such as Latin to state school pupils. How can you have a class where some of the pupils really do wait on the others. Interestingly the state school head, some twenty years ago refused such offers for that very reason and was widely vilified. She was right IMHO
One of my best friends was offered a free place for their grandson at the said public school to which they retorted, No, we want him to be more than a bartender in a pub.
Hmmm. Genuine question.
How much autonomy do schools in the UK have over their school dinner organisation?
Could something like the Japanese model be tried here?
We already have something of an emphasis on locally produced ingredients? That may be easier in say Wales, where free meals are universal (or moving that way).
Unpopular opinion: we should drop the prevailing, mawkish 1950s "good hot meal" stuff, close the kitchens, and give the children sandwiches and fruit and a small slice of cake.
(I may be biased because my parents wouldn't (not couldn't) pay for school meals, so that's what I ate anyway...)
I can’t see Kemi Badenoch supporting this proposal.
I believe part of the remarks of the judge on the Free Palestine ‘terrorists’ was that they were not the same as the Suffragettes because they violently attacked and destroyed property while the latter arsonists and bombers did not.
I love a bit of revisionist history as much as the next man, but..
Do you have a quote? Or is this from an Albanian black cab driver?
Some irony in PB’s chief anecdotalist asking for verification.
The Lady Chief Justice: Palestine Action was not a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, but used violence to destroy property
The suffragettes burned down country houses & train stations, bombed churches & sent letter bombs to politicians.
Yet another example of living in an Eternal Present. Reality is what the AI/Internet says it is, not what books in libraries or contemporaneous reports/pamphlets/cuttings says it is, nor what historians say it is.
So many people have a distorted view of history. The suffragettes won in the end, and we all remember snippets, such as the lady ran over by a horse, and the slightly odd names (Emmeline Pankhurst - that can't be a real person, right?)
Its everywhere in history. There is typically an 'everyman' view of history that people vaguely know. We tend to think of WW2 as less bloody for the British Army that WW1 and by strict terms it was, but mainly because they only fought in Europe for about 12 months in total. Actual casualty rates from 6th June 1944 - 8th May 1945 were pretty similar to those in the WW1.
And Henry 8th was monstrously fat. Well yes he was, at the end, but in his prime he was a fit, tall, athletic man.
Amazing how many idiots think they can be violent offenders so long as their cause is justified and they call it "direct action".
Protest all you like peacefully. Do it violently as these thugs did, and there are consequences.
Corner, a former student at the University of Oxford, was also convicted of causing grievous bodily harm after he fractured Sgt Kate Evans' spine with a sledgehammer in the raid.
He's lucky he did not get a life sentence.
It's really sad. He was so brainwashed (presumably by his social group or "feed") that he didn't show any remorse for fracturing a police officer's spine with a sledgehammer, instead saying she was complicit in genocide.
So, now, he's got 8 years in jail and I don't think is eligible for early release. He's lost all of his 20s and lots of opportunities in his life.
He will need to show he's learned his lesson to be let out in normal society again. Meanwhile, the police officer has to live with her injuries for life.
Yes.
It could have very easily been murder he was charged with.
GBH can face a life sentence too.
Still people act like this violence is justified. Or "direct action" protest not crimes.
We already have wholly adequate laws to deal with GBH. The question is whether it is terrorism.
Section 1 of Terrorism Act 2000 is pretty clear:
Terrorism: interpretation. (1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government [F1or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [F2, racial] or ideological cause.
(2)Action falls within this subsection if it—
(a)involves serious violence against a person,
(b)involves serious damage to property,
(c)endangers a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e)is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
My understanding of what happened - and correct me if I'm wrong - was that the group didn't set out to attack the police to advance their cause, but rather they broke into an Israeli arms factory in the UK and then got into a fight with police - the activist claims to have panicked after being pepper sprayed. They are being called terrorists for direct action against property. IMHO the Israeli government who use these weapons against unarmed women and children are much closer to being terrorists than these people are. I am wholly supportive of the young man being done for GBH for the attack on the WPC but I think it's an insult to the victims of terrorism to call them terrorists. As for locking people up for holding placards saying they support the group... it is so ludicrous that it would be funny if it wasn't such a blatant attack on free speech.
But direct action against property is right there in the Act as item 2 b.
There's no doubt it was a political act so the only doubt it seems to me is whether 1b applies ie. designed to influence the government or the public.
I'm not saying I support that view, merely pointing out that it is the law and I can see why the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines.
Yeah I'm not criticizing the judge, I am criticizing the law. I don't think that smashing up an arms factory whose products are used to aid an illegal occupation and war crimes is terrorism. The fact they had a political motivation doesn't strike me as making their actions worse than if it had been mindless vandalism. For sure do them for criminal damage and GBH. But if they are terrorists then the word has lost all meaning and the law is ludicrous. I was thinking of talking about my love of stop motion animation and hence my support for plasticene action but then I wondered whether this might create legal problems for the site. That is the extent of the absurdity of the current law and its chilling effects on free speech.
Well how do you define terrorism then?
Seeking to create a state of terror to achieve political ends?
How do you think the policewoman who was attacked with a sledgehammer might have felt? Terrified?
I am not defending the actions of the man who hit her. He has rightly gone to jail.
There is a difference between an individual being terrified during a crime (I was terrified when I was mugged in Denmark Hill) and seeking to create a general state of terror in the populace.
I've been out all morning and catching up about what's been said by Labour, Reform, Tories and others.
What's MASSIVE and nothing to do with the content, possibly due to panic scheduling by some, but the Content can only be read by what you can see, hear and find.Is the exposure or lack of it.
Of course the incumbent Government gets priority whoever they are but Reform on immigration and economic issues pertaining to immigration have totally drowned out the Tories defence agenda.
It's striking just how irrelevant the Tories are becoming even with Core past Tory supporting media.
It beggars belief though that whoever is advising Badenoch coukd really believe that after 14 years they could dare to give ultimatums to Labour on the defence topic.
Jenrick has totally outshine his past Party on exposure and that trend if it becomes endemic will see the extinction of the Tories as a main stream Party.
You have been out all morning but find Reform has drowned out Kemi's defence announcement and then your usual anti Kemi garbage
How on earth if you have been out have you drawn that conclusion and it is nonsense anyway
The news is being dominated by the under 16 media ban
I believe part of the remarks of the judge on the Free Palestine ‘terrorists’ was that they were not the same as the Suffragettes because they violently attacked and destroyed property while the latter arsonists and bombers did not.
I love a bit of revisionist history as much as the next man, but..
Do you have a quote? Or is this from an Albanian black cab driver?
Some irony in PB’s chief anecdotalist asking for verification.
The Lady Chief Justice: Palestine Action was not a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, but used violence to destroy property
The suffragettes burned down country houses & train stations, bombed churches & sent letter bombs to politicians.
Yet another example of living in an Eternal Present. Reality is what the AI/Internet says it is, not what books in libraries or contemporaneous reports/pamphlets/cuttings says it is, nor what historians say it is.
So many people have a distorted view of history. The suffragettes won in the end, and we all remember snippets, such as the lady ran over by a horse, and the slightly odd names (Emmeline Pankhurst - that can't be a real person, right?)
Its everywhere in history. There is typically an 'everyman' view of history that people vaguely know. We tend to think of WW2 as less bloody for the British Army that WW1 and by strict terms it was, but mainly because they only fought in Europe for about 12 months in total. Actual casualty rates from 6th June 1944 - 8th May 1945 were pretty similar to those in the WW1.
And Henry 8th was monstrously fat. Well yes he was, at the end, but in his prime he was a fit, tall, athletic man.
And so on.
Indeed.
Whereas arguably it was World War One that got women the vote and the actions of the Suffragettes had held back legislative progress.
Businesses that can't control their costs or hedge their risks, look for subsidies.
You are aware that business 'leecy is really, really expensive in the UK? And has been for a long time.
There is no way to hedge that.
It's quite simple - energy intensive industries are not competitive in this country, due to the very high cost of power.
It's decimating a lot of small industrial stuff.
As I posted earlier and should have been clearer - the issue is completely known so I don’t see the point of any reporting that doesn’t at least think about why it’s the case and how to fix the issues that make it such a problem
Another way in which layabouts are subsidised by workers:
Water, phone and broadband companies are willing to give millions of people discounted deals on their bills.
Social tariffs - sometimes known as essential, or basic, tariffs - can reduce bills for people on various benefits. Generally, you only need to ask your supplier to get on one.
Importantly, they are not price promotions designed to attract customers, but lower bills for the same service for those who would otherwise struggle to pay.
Most people who have fallen behind on paying their bills are unaware this help is available, a major report has suggested.
These tariffs vary between suppliers and the lower cost of them is often covered by higher bills for everyone else.
Which, again, exposes the fallacy of the "universal credit isn't much, would you like to live on it ?" argument.
Receiving one benefit often acts as a gateway to receiving a multitude of other benefits and subsidies.
The “Gateway” is a massive social problem. Once you’re inside the gateway, you have no incentive to actually work unless it’s for a six-figure salary.
Sorry to say you are wrong. Gateway is as it says. There is no obligation to provide access to the benefit without an Income/Expenditure statement backed by evidence.
The problem is that for those inside the Gateway then providing an Income/Expenditure statement is easier than going to work and earning enough. The poverty trap is real, once receiving all these benefits actually working becomes counterproductive.
Just look at Free School Meals. Many schools have over a quarter of pupils eligible to them. To be fair there's multiple reasons why people can be eligible, but based on income the threshold is not UC, it is an income of less than £7,400 per annum.
How the hell can a quarter of families in many schools have an income of less than £7,400 per annum? That's less than 12 hours a week of work per family to hit that threshold at Minimum Wage.
But if someone is living on that, then actually starting a job and facing a nearly 100% tax rate on UC once past tax thresholds, as well as losing access to FSM and a plethora of other benefits like these becomes utterly unviable.
It is a trap people can't escape. Because the real tax rate becomes well over 100% if you a trapped inside that.
I'm generally with Bart on a lot of this around poverty traps, though I'd differ on a lot of details. I was optimistic for the IDS / Tim Montgomerie initiatives around UC, but Mr Osborne did a lot to wreck it.
And for FSM, for example, I'd be quite inclined to follow the Scandinavians and make them for everyone - incorporating some Japanese style socialisation and learning, treating it as a part of the education process.
In Japan some of the children are a team who serve the others, and take away dishes etc.
Perhaps state school kids could be trained to serve lunch to private school kids? This would help to offset the life-destroying impact of VAT on private school fees, while also providing useful work experience for the otherwise unemployable oiks churned out by state system. As in Japan it would provide a useful form of socialization as children would learn their proper place in the social hierarchy.
You're missing a step. You should grind up the state school kids into mincemeat and bake them into pies, then feed them to the private school kids. An excellent source of protein and establishing beyond peradventure the social hierarchy which we all know and love.
Are they vegan???
State school kids only cost 6K each. That's not very deer.
Businesses that can't control their costs or hedge their risks, look for subsidies.
You are aware that business 'leecy is really, really expensive in the UK? And has been for a long time.
There is no way to hedge that.
It's quite simple - energy intensive industries are not competitive in this country, due to the very high cost of power.
It's decimating a lot of small industrial stuff.
As I posted earlier and should have been clearer - the issue is completely known so I don’t see the point of any reporting that doesn’t at least think about why it’s the case and how to fix the issues that make it such a problem
It is completely know about here.
But it is virtually unknown in the wider population. Nearly no one knows that while bills have been held down for individual consumers, they have rocketed for commercial. This includes some politicians.
Businesses that can't control their costs or hedge their risks, look for subsidies.
You are aware that business 'leecy is really, really expensive in the UK? And has been for a long time.
There is no way to hedge that.
It's quite simple - energy intensive industries are not competitive in this country, due to the very high cost of power.
It's decimating a lot of small industrial stuff.
Yes aware. Dr Dieter Helm is the recognised expert on why and what might be done.
But coming back to your point about "high cost for a long time" you either hedge, innovate, lower the energy element or move parts of the business - or you don't have a business. There is a naivety in UK plc that the solution to every problem is government intervention or subsidy*. I've been as guilty as the next business but eventually you have to bite the bullet and work out if you want to be in business or not. It comes down to the efficient use of capital and not the efficient lobbying for taxpayer subsidy though that seems to be encouraged by lots of past governments wanting as many 'clients' as possible.
Businesses that can't control their costs or hedge their risks, look for subsidies.
You are aware that business 'leecy is really, really expensive in the UK? And has been for a long time.
There is no way to hedge that.
It's quite simple - energy intensive industries are not competitive in this country, due to the very high cost of power.
It's decimating a lot of small industrial stuff.
Yes aware. Dr Dieter Helm is the recognised expert on why and what might be done.
But coming back to your point about "high cost for a long time" you either hedge, innovate, lower the energy element or move parts of the business - or you don't have a business. There is a naivety in UK plc that the solution to every problem is government intervention or subsidy*. I've been as guilty as the next business but eventually you have to bite the bullet and work out if you want to be in business or not. It comes down to the efficient use of capital and not the efficient lobbying for taxpayer subsidy though that seems to be encouraged by lots of past governments wanting as many 'clients' as possible.
* See UC.
The businesses that I know of are innovating. By moving the high energy work to countries where the 'leech is cheaper.
I've been out all morning and catching up about what's been said by Labour, Reform, Tories and others.
What's MASSIVE and nothing to do with the content, possibly due to panic scheduling by some, but the Content can only be read by what you can see, hear and find.Is the exposure or lack of it.
Of course the incumbent Government gets priority whoever they are but Reform on immigration and economic issues pertaining to immigration have totally drowned out the Tories defence agenda.
It's striking just how irrelevant the Tories are becoming even with Core past Tory supporting media.
It beggars belief though that whoever is advising Badenoch coukd really believe that after 14 years they could dare to give ultimatums to Labour on the defence topic.
Jenrick has totally outshine his past Party on exposure and that trend if it becomes endemic will see the extinction of the Tories as a main stream Party.
You have been out all morning but find Reform has drowned out Kemi's defence announcement and then your usual anti Kemi garbage
How on earth if you have been out have you drawn that conclusion and it is nonsense anyway
The news is being dominated by the under 16 media ban
Of course unlike you I research across media not just the Telegraph
The resident kemity dares to question impartiality
Jenrick has had massively more exposure than Kemi
She does have the opportunity of an emergency question but the poor old Tories have completely neutered that concemt
A man my (left wing) mother once described as "a thug" for his role in trying to abolish grammar schools in the early 2000s.
Shows the awfulness of grammar schools that it united the right and left such as Thatcher and Hattersley in wanting to abolish them.
It's private schools that should have been abolished, not grammar schools.
Why?
Unusually Casino on this I am with you here. I don't want my taxes paying for a superior education for other people's children and not my own. On the other hand if you choose to pay for a private education, that is your business.
My wife and I had a (serious) conversation about pulling our kids out of private school at the weekend, and going for the local CofE primary, maybe with private tutoring on top.
This would of course mean we start taking two average funded state school places (c.£12k a year) for our two kids, and no longer pay the VAT on the fees (c.£7.2k a year) with a net cost to taxpayers of our decision of £19.2k per year.
But it's too expensive and we're not sure we can do it or justify it anymore.
I wonder how many others are in our position.
Quite a few, my eldest is currently doing his exams, a few of his friends won't be back to do their A-Levels.
A friend absolutely hates himself that his kid has been taken away from his friends and gone into a school with nearly double class sizes.
I think most parents would scrimp and save to let a kid finish at a school they are already at. Its simply too disruptive to do anything else. The real impact will be on those who are never started there and will feed in over the next decade.
Good morning
A private school in Bangor announced it's closer due to vat and other ffinancial changes just as some of it's pupils were going into their exams causing anger and tears
Our son, who works in the sector but not at this school, was incredulous that the school were so insensitive
What's the line from Decline and Fall? "Very much a school"?
Private Schools have benefitted from unfair perks
Private Schools have in many cases seen this as a cash cow.
Private Schools are only being asked to pay fair VAT
Its a shame pupils suffer. It's a shame teachers suffer.
Reduction in childbirth impacts.
This is down to inept management and financial planning.
Your last point is probably the key one for me.
If a business has so little left in reserve, and is running so close to collapse, that it has to close this quickly, it's not really been a viable business for some time.
And I'm sure the VAT imposition hasn't helped- but it's also the case that the public sector frontline tends to be much better at cutting its coat, because it has less cloth to play with.
“Closing this quickly”? It’s closing at the end of the school year. That’s the most ethical way to do it with the minimum of disruption for children
And? The problem is obvious the unknown is how do you solve the issue given that the market price is usually set by the global price of natural gas
You decouple it by placing gas plants into a strategic reserve, where they would receive a regulated return for remaining open. They would be managed centrally and called on to generate power as needed outside of the market, which would continue to use marginal pricing, which would be considerably lower and less volatile than under the current arrangement which benefits all the power suppliers sheltering under the high prices.
The strategic gas plant reserve would be subsidised a lot of the time but the cost would be much more than offset by the growth (and tax) benefit of cheaper electricity to industry and consumers.
I hope someone in government is modelling this in an unbiased way, and not under the influence of the the power industry.
Perhaps Burnham will sort it at the same time as he sorts the water industry.
However I suspect some senior heads in the Treasury will have to roll in order to change the culture there.
I believe part of the remarks of the judge on the Free Palestine ‘terrorists’ was that they were not the same as the Suffragettes because they violently attacked and destroyed property while the latter arsonists and bombers did not.
I love a bit of revisionist history as much as the next man, but..
Do you have a quote? Or is this from an Albanian black cab driver?
Some irony in PB’s chief anecdotalist asking for verification.
The Lady Chief Justice: Palestine Action was not a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, but used violence to destroy property
The suffragettes burned down country houses & train stations, bombed churches & sent letter bombs to politicians.
Yet another example of living in an Eternal Present. Reality is what the AI/Internet says it is, not what books in libraries or contemporaneous reports/pamphlets/cuttings says it is, nor what historians say it is.
So many people have a distorted view of history. The suffragettes won in the end, and we all remember snippets, such as the lady ran over by a horse, and the slightly odd names (Emmeline Pankhurst - that can't be a real person, right?)
Its everywhere in history. There is typically an 'everyman' view of history that people vaguely know. We tend to think of WW2 as less bloody for the British Army that WW1 and by strict terms it was, but mainly because they only fought in Europe for about 12 months in total. Actual casualty rates from 6th June 1944 - 8th May 1945 were pretty similar to those in the WW1.
And Henry 8th was monstrously fat. Well yes he was, at the end, but in his prime he was a fit, tall, athletic man.
And so on.
On Henry VIII it surprised me as an adult to learn quite how long he was married to Catherine of Aragon - more than twenty years!
Obviously he went through them with bloodthirsty pace afterwards, but the accepted history is about the latter period, rather than the earlier.
The specific mandated charges that would disappear include: Renewables Obligation (RO): ~15% of the bill Contracts for Difference (CfD): ~6% of the bill Feed-in Tariffs (FiT): ~4% of the bill Climate Change Levy (CCL): ~3% of the bill (currently billed at 0.801p per kWh) Capacity Market (CM) & RAB Nuclear Levy: ~3% to 4% of the bill
I don’t know how much of these could be removed without the government breaching commercial contracts.
Gemini reckons you’d get a roughly 30% reduction in commercial electricity cost if you cut the above which is not insignificant. The treasury would need to find £5b in revenue from elsewhere.
I believe part of the remarks of the judge on the Free Palestine ‘terrorists’ was that they were not the same as the Suffragettes because they violently attacked and destroyed property while the latter arsonists and bombers did not.
I love a bit of revisionist history as much as the next man, but..
Do you have a quote? Or is this from an Albanian black cab driver?
Some irony in PB’s chief anecdotalist asking for verification.
The Lady Chief Justice: Palestine Action was not a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, but used violence to destroy property
The suffragettes burned down country houses & train stations, bombed churches & sent letter bombs to politicians.
Yet another example of living in an Eternal Present. Reality is what the AI/Internet says it is, not what books in libraries or contemporaneous reports/pamphlets/cuttings says it is, nor what historians say it is.
So many people have a distorted view of history. The suffragettes won in the end, and we all remember snippets, such as the lady ran over by a horse, and the slightly odd names (Emmeline Pankhurst - that can't be a real person, right?)
Its everywhere in history. There is typically an 'everyman' view of history that people vaguely know. We tend to think of WW2 as less bloody for the British Army that WW1 and by strict terms it was, but mainly because they only fought in Europe for about 12 months in total. Actual casualty rates from 6th June 1944 - 8th May 1945 were pretty similar to those in the WW1.
And Henry 8th was monstrously fat. Well yes he was, at the end, but in his prime he was a fit, tall, athletic man.
And so on.
On Henry VIII it surprised me as an adult to learn quite how long he was married to Catherine of Aragon - more than twenty years!
Obviously he went through them with bloodthirsty pace afterwards, but the accepted history is about the latter period, rather than the earlier.
Indeed. And if they had had a surviving male heir he would not have divorced her, broken with Rome and all that followed.
And? The problem is obvious the unknown is how do you solve the issue given that the market price is usually set by the global price of natural gas
You decouple it by placing gas plants into a strategic reserve, where they would receive a regulated return for remaining open. They would be managed centrally and called on to generate power as needed outside of the market, which would continue to use marginal pricing, which would be considerably lower and less volatile than under the current arrangement which benefits all the power suppliers sheltering under the high prices.
The strategic gas plant reserve would be subsidised a lot of the time but the cost would be much more than offset by the growth (and tax) benefit of cheaper electricity to industry and consumers.
I hope someone in government is modelling this in an unbiased way, and not under the influence of the the power industry.
Perhaps Burnham will sort it at the same time as he sorts the water industry.
However I suspect some senior heads in the Treasury will have to roll in order to change the culture there.
Some? My advice to Burnham would be to close Treasury London and move it lock stock and barrel up North. Then watch how quickly HS2B is built so they can get down south when they need to as 2 hours 25 is clearly too long..
I've been out all morning and catching up about what's been said by Labour, Reform, Tories and others.
What's MASSIVE and nothing to do with the content, possibly due to panic scheduling by some, but the Content can only be read by what you can see, hear and find.Is the exposure or lack of it.
Of course the incumbent Government gets priority whoever they are but Reform on immigration and economic issues pertaining to immigration have totally drowned out the Tories defence agenda.
It's striking just how irrelevant the Tories are becoming even with Core past Tory supporting media.
It beggars belief though that whoever is advising Badenoch coukd really believe that after 14 years they could dare to give ultimatums to Labour on the defence topic.
Jenrick has totally outshine his past Party on exposure and that trend if it becomes endemic will see the extinction of the Tories as a main stream Party.
You have been out all morning but find Reform has drowned out Kemi's defence announcement and then your usual anti Kemi garbage
How on earth if you have been out have you drawn that conclusion and it is nonsense anyway
The news is being dominated by the under 16 media ban
Of course unlike you I research across media not just the Telegraph
The resident kemity dares to question impartiality
Jenrick has had massively more exposure than Kemi
She does have the opportunity of an emergency question but the poor old Tories have completely neutered that concemt
I rarely read the Telegraph but do read across the media including the Guardian and watch Sky news
Today has been all about the under 16 media ban and the US - Iran deal
I have not seen Kemi or Jenrick on the news today
Mind you your answer to defence is to ban Trident making you one of Putin's helpers who would be delighted
The specific mandated charges that would disappear include: Renewables Obligation (RO): ~15% of the bill Contracts for Difference (CfD): ~6% of the bill Feed-in Tariffs (FiT): ~4% of the bill Climate Change Levy (CCL): ~3% of the bill (currently billed at 0.801p per kWh) Capacity Market (CM) & RAB Nuclear Levy: ~3% to 4% of the bill
I don’t know how much of these could be removed without the government breaching commercial contracts.
Gemini reckons you’d get a roughly 30% reduction in commercial electricity cost if you cut the above which is not insignificant. The treasury would need to find £5b in revenue from elsewhere.
Feed in tariffs can't be phased out of the charge portion because they're baked in from as late as 2019 for 20 years onward as receipts to recipients unless you borrow more generally to fund them. They'll dovetail out and be out completely from 2039 though. Mind you they've changed the inflation measure to CPI from RPI unilaterally though which will save them a few pennies.
Declaration of interest: I'm a recipient of the FIT.
I've been out all morning and catching up about what's been said by Labour, Reform, Tories and others.
What's MASSIVE and nothing to do with the content, possibly due to panic scheduling by some, but the Content can only be read by what you can see, hear and find.Is the exposure or lack of it.
Of course the incumbent Government gets priority whoever they are but Reform on immigration and economic issues pertaining to immigration have totally drowned out the Tories defence agenda.
It's striking just how irrelevant the Tories are becoming even with Core past Tory supporting media.
It beggars belief though that whoever is advising Badenoch coukd really believe that after 14 years they could dare to give ultimatums to Labour on the defence topic.
Jenrick has totally outshine his past Party on exposure and that trend if it becomes endemic will see the extinction of the Tories as a main stream Party.
You have been out all morning but find Reform has drowned out Kemi's defence announcement and then your usual anti Kemi garbage
How on earth if you have been out have you drawn that conclusion and it is nonsense anyway
The news is being dominated by the under 16 media ban
Of course unlike you I research across media not just the Telegraph
The resident kemity dares to question impartiality
Jenrick has had massively more exposure than Kemi
She does have the opportunity of an emergency question but the poor old Tories have completely neutered that concemt
I rarely read the Telegraph but do read across the media including the Guardian and watch Sky news
Today has been all about the under 16 media ban and the US - Iran deal
I have not seen Kemi or Jenrick on the news today
Mind you your answer to defence is to ban Trident making you one of Putin's helpers who would be delighted
Jenrick announced a cleverly designed plan to cut Employer NI by increasing it for none citizens...
Now it's racist and has fundamental flaws in that TCS and co seem to avoid paying employer NI on the overseas workers they ship here but he definitely picked the wrong day to announce it.
I believe part of the remarks of the judge on the Free Palestine ‘terrorists’ was that they were not the same as the Suffragettes because they violently attacked and destroyed property while the latter arsonists and bombers did not.
I love a bit of revisionist history as much as the next man, but..
Do you have a quote? Or is this from an Albanian black cab driver?
Some irony in PB’s chief anecdotalist asking for verification.
The Lady Chief Justice: Palestine Action was not a direct action civil disobedience protest group like the suffragettes, but used violence to destroy property
The suffragettes burned down country houses & train stations, bombed churches & sent letter bombs to politicians.
Yet another example of living in an Eternal Present. Reality is what the AI/Internet says it is, not what books in libraries or contemporaneous reports/pamphlets/cuttings says it is, nor what historians say it is.
So many people have a distorted view of history. The suffragettes won in the end, and we all remember snippets, such as the lady ran over by a horse, and the slightly odd names (Emmeline Pankhurst - that can't be a real person, right?)
Its everywhere in history. There is typically an 'everyman' view of history that people vaguely know. We tend to think of WW2 as less bloody for the British Army that WW1 and by strict terms it was, but mainly because they only fought in Europe for about 12 months in total. Actual casualty rates from 6th June 1944 - 8th May 1945 were pretty similar to those in the WW1.
And Henry 8th was monstrously fat. Well yes he was, at the end, but in his prime he was a fit, tall, athletic man.
And so on.
On Henry VIII it surprised me as an adult to learn quite how long he was married to Catherine of Aragon - more than twenty years!
Obviously he went through them with bloodthirsty pace afterwards, but the accepted history is about the latter period, rather than the earlier.
Indeed. And if they had had a surviving male heir he would not have divorced her, broken with Rome and all that followed.
The back history of what became the Protestant movement in England suggests that something would have happened, at some point.
I've been out all morning and catching up about what's been said by Labour, Reform, Tories and others.
What's MASSIVE and nothing to do with the content, possibly due to panic scheduling by some, but the Content can only be read by what you can see, hear and find.Is the exposure or lack of it.
Of course the incumbent Government gets priority whoever they are but Reform on immigration and economic issues pertaining to immigration have totally drowned out the Tories defence agenda.
It's striking just how irrelevant the Tories are becoming even with Core past Tory supporting media.
It beggars belief though that whoever is advising Badenoch coukd really believe that after 14 years they could dare to give ultimatums to Labour on the defence topic.
Jenrick has totally outshine his past Party on exposure and that trend if it becomes endemic will see the extinction of the Tories as a main stream Party.
You have been out all morning but find Reform has drowned out Kemi's defence announcement and then your usual anti Kemi garbage
How on earth if you have been out have you drawn that conclusion and it is nonsense anyway
The news is being dominated by the under 16 media ban
Of course unlike you I research across media not just the Telegraph
The resident kemity dares to question impartiality
Jenrick has had massively more exposure than Kemi
She does have the opportunity of an emergency question but the poor old Tories have completely neutered that concemt
I rarely read the Telegraph but do read across the media including the Guardian and watch Sky news
Today has been all about the under 16 media ban and the US - Iran deal
I have not seen Kemi or Jenrick on the news today
Mind you your answer to defence is to ban Trident making you one of Putin's helpers who would be delighted
Jenrick announced a cleverly designed plan to cut Employer NI by increasing it for none citizens...
Now it's racist and has fundamental flaws in that TCS and co seem to avoid paying employer NI on the overseas workers they ship here but he definitely picked the wrong day to announce it.
The conservatives are well rid of him and Braverman and their idiotic ideas
And? The problem is obvious the unknown is how do you solve the issue given that the market price is usually set by the global price of natural gas
You decouple it by placing gas plants into a strategic reserve, where they would receive a regulated return for remaining open. They would be managed centrally and called on to generate power as needed outside of the market, which would continue to use marginal pricing, which would be considerably lower and less volatile than under the current arrangement which benefits all the power suppliers sheltering under the high prices.
The strategic gas plant reserve would be subsidised a lot of the time but the cost would be much more than offset by the growth (and tax) benefit of cheaper electricity to industry and consumers.
I hope someone in government is modelling this in an unbiased way, and not under the influence of the the power industry.
Perhaps Burnham will sort it at the same time as he sorts the water industry.
However I suspect some senior heads in the Treasury will have to roll in order to change the culture there.
This is a very good idea once we get to a point where gas is only providing the occasional back up. The problem now is that it still provides around 25% of our generation
I've been out all morning and catching up about what's been said by Labour, Reform, Tories and others.
What's MASSIVE and nothing to do with the content, possibly due to panic scheduling by some, but the Content can only be read by what you can see, hear and find.Is the exposure or lack of it.
Of course the incumbent Government gets priority whoever they are but Reform on immigration and economic issues pertaining to immigration have totally drowned out the Tories defence agenda.
It's striking just how irrelevant the Tories are becoming even with Core past Tory supporting media.
It beggars belief though that whoever is advising Badenoch coukd really believe that after 14 years they could dare to give ultimatums to Labour on the defence topic.
Jenrick has totally outshine his past Party on exposure and that trend if it becomes endemic will see the extinction of the Tories as a main stream Party.
You have been out all morning but find Reform has drowned out Kemi's defence announcement and then your usual anti Kemi garbage
How on earth if you have been out have you drawn that conclusion and it is nonsense anyway
The news is being dominated by the under 16 media ban
Of course unlike you I research across media not just the Telegraph
The resident kemity dares to question impartiality
Jenrick has had massively more exposure than Kemi
She does have the opportunity of an emergency question but the poor old Tories have completely neutered that concemt
I rarely read the Telegraph but do read across the media including the Guardian and watch Sky news
Today has been all about the under 16 media ban and the US - Iran deal
I have not seen Kemi or Jenrick on the news today
Mind you your answer to defence is to ban Trident making you one of Putin's helpers who would be delighted
Jenrick announced a cleverly designed plan to cut Employer NI by increasing it for none citizens...
Now it's racist and has fundamental flaws in that TCS and co seem to avoid paying employer NI on the overseas workers they ship here but he definitely picked the wrong day to announce it.
The conservatives are well rid of him and Braverman and their idiotic ideas
I wouldn't call the plan idiotic - to Reform supporters it looks great, lower employer NI for them, paid for by a set of (coloured) people they would prefer to leave the country.
Downside is if the foreigners actually left the extra tax would disappear so the Employer NI deductions could only be short term..
Given the voters Reform are targetting it's a great policy albeit with a massive flaw..
On the subject of jobs and the recruitment system not working, a proposal.
A Job Fair with a difference. At each employers stand, you talk (as usual) with some people for the company. If they like what you say in 1-2minutes of conversation, they book you in for a first round interview. A slot, in a side room, *that day*. That evening, you get a go/no-go for the second round.
Comments
There's no doubt it was a political act so the only doubt it seems to me is whether 1b applies ie. designed to influence the government or the public.
I'm not saying I support that view, merely pointing out that it is the law and I can see why the judge had to follow sentencing guidelines.
The rule of law is boring in all those ways. The people who only like it when they happen to approve have missed the point and lost the plot.
It is frequently the case that people are charged with a lesser crime than evidence supports. This is the government trying to reduce the prison population.
On occasion, it becomes policy (via the CPS) to throw the book at certain people. See some of the race rioters. And see Palestinian Action.
It’s all entirely legal, but it certainly isn’t the completely hands off, impartial justice that some people seems to think happens.
What's MASSIVE and nothing to do with the content, possibly due to panic scheduling by some, but the Content can only be read by what you can see, hear and find.Is the exposure or lack of it.
Of course the incumbent Government gets priority whoever they are but Reform on immigration and economic issues pertaining to immigration have totally drowned out the Tories defence agenda.
It's striking just how irrelevant the Tories are becoming even with Core past Tory supporting media.
It beggars belief though that whoever is advising Badenoch coukd really believe that after 14 years they could dare to give ultimatums to Labour on the defence topic.
Jenrick has totally outshine his past Party on exposure and that trend if it becomes endemic will see the extinction of the Tories as a main stream Party.
16 years = can vote.
1: more or less anybody can put content up on the platform, and there is not really any pre-scrutiny of it
2: the app is strongly incentivised to show you the content that gets greater engagement, which often means stuff that gets you worked up
You can also use youtube like TV or like a paid streaming service, where you have some favourite channels and just watch the latest episode of whatever, so it is partly in each camp.
Or has that been superseded?
Don't commit ABH.
I'm pretty sure my Google account is more than 16 years old anyway.
But so what? Presumably you will be able to apply to read X before it’s actually your 16th birthday.
I was thinking of talking about my love of stop motion animation and hence my support for plasticene action but then I wondered whether this might create legal problems for the site. That is the extent of the absurdity of the current law and its chilling effects on free speech.
God knows what that nonsense is all about.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2026/jun/15/manufacturers-unions-electricity-prices-make-uk-tuc
My wife and I worry about how much we use devices in front of our son and he is scarily good at operating stuff (like the DVD player*). But people need to wobble their heads a bit if they think good parenting is leaving a kid looking at a mobile phone at 18 months...
*Streaming is a con. So much stuff is an additional charge to what you already pay that we are now buying DVD's (ludicrously cheap, like a Leon coffee can, from ebay or vinted).
Nobody is happy with its replacement, council tax, but it's survived because no-one has been willing to court unpopularity by changing or replacing it.
(I may be biased because my parents wouldn't (not couldn't) pay for school meals, so that's what I ate anyway...)
Its everywhere in history. There is typically an 'everyman' view of history that people vaguely know. We tend to think of WW2 as less bloody for the British Army that WW1 and by strict terms it was, but mainly because they only fought in Europe for about 12 months in total. Actual casualty rates from 6th June 1944 - 8th May 1945 were pretty similar to those in the WW1.
And Henry 8th was monstrously fat. Well yes he was, at the end, but in his prime he was a fit, tall, athletic man.
And so on.
There is a difference between an individual being terrified during a crime (I was terrified when I was mugged in Denmark Hill) and seeking to create a general state of terror in the populace.
How on earth if you have been out have you drawn that conclusion and it is nonsense anyway
The news is being dominated by the under 16 media ban
There is no way to hedge that.
It's quite simple - energy intensive industries are not competitive in this country, due to the very high cost of power.
It's decimating a lot of small industrial stuff.
Whereas arguably it was World War One that got women the vote and the actions of the Suffragettes had held back legislative progress.
So no, they aren't vegan.
But it is virtually unknown in the wider population. Nearly no one knows that while bills have been held down for individual consumers, they have rocketed for commercial. This includes some politicians.
But coming back to your point about "high cost for a long time" you either hedge, innovate, lower the energy element or move parts of the business - or you don't have a business. There is a naivety in UK plc that the solution to every problem is government intervention or subsidy*. I've been as guilty as the next business but eventually you have to bite the bullet and work out if you want to be in business or not. It comes down to the efficient use of capital and not the efficient lobbying for taxpayer subsidy though that seems to be encouraged by lots of past governments wanting as many 'clients' as possible.
* See UC.
The resident kemity dares to question impartiality
Jenrick has had massively more exposure than Kemi
She does have the opportunity of an emergency question but the poor old Tories have completely neutered that concemt
The strategic gas plant reserve would be subsidised a lot of the time but the cost would be much more than offset by the growth (and tax) benefit of cheaper electricity to industry and consumers.
I hope someone in government is modelling this in an unbiased way, and not under the influence of the the power industry.
Perhaps Burnham will sort it at the same time as he sorts the water industry.
However I suspect some senior heads in the Treasury will have to roll in order to change the culture there.
Obviously he went through them with bloodthirsty pace afterwards, but the accepted history is about the latter period, rather than the earlier.
The specific mandated charges that would disappear include:
Renewables Obligation (RO): ~15% of the bill
Contracts for Difference (CfD): ~6% of the bill
Feed-in Tariffs (FiT): ~4% of the bill
Climate Change Levy (CCL): ~3% of the bill (currently billed at 0.801p per kWh)
Capacity Market (CM) & RAB Nuclear Levy: ~3% to 4% of the bill
I don’t know how much of these could be removed without the government breaching commercial contracts.
Gemini reckons you’d get a roughly 30% reduction in commercial electricity cost if you cut the above which is not insignificant. The treasury would need to find £5b in revenue from elsewhere.
Snip
Today has been all about the under 16 media ban and the US - Iran deal
I have not seen Kemi or Jenrick on the news today
Mind you your answer to defence is to ban Trident making you one of Putin's helpers who would be delighted
Mind you they've changed the inflation measure to CPI from RPI unilaterally though which will save them a few pennies.
Declaration of interest: I'm a recipient of the FIT.
Now it's racist and has fundamental flaws in that TCS and co seem to avoid paying employer NI on the overseas workers they ship here but he definitely picked the wrong day to announce it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollardy
Downside is if the foreigners actually left the extra tax would disappear so the Employer NI deductions could only be short term..
Given the voters Reform are targetting it's a great policy albeit with a massive flaw..
A Job Fair with a difference. At each employers stand, you talk (as usual) with some people for the company. If they like what you say in 1-2minutes of conversation, they book you in for a first round interview. A slot, in a side room, *that day*. That evening, you get a go/no-go for the second round.
When asked what she would do if she could not go online she said 'stare at the wall'
One despairs