Skip to content

Why Starmer is the best and needs to remain PM until after the World Cup final– politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,248
edited 3:07PM in General
Why Starmer is the best and needs to remain PM until after the World Cup final – politicalbetting.com

76% – England have won 76% of matches since Sir Keir Starmer became Prime Minister (22/29).That's the best win ratio England have had under any serving Prime Minister in history.Statesman. https://t.co/a9PDFvKx04 pic.twitter.com/QPczXTuUmO

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 29,216
    edited 3:10PM
    First
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 29,216
    Still first
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 29,216
    First again
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 29,216
    (presses button repeatedly)
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,620
    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/boost-for-skills-and-research-as-35-universities-across-the-uk-partner-in-new-defence-alliance

    A new Defence Universities Alliance with 35 UK universities will help strengthen defence research, build critical skills and support the UK's future defence capability.
  • Jim_the_LurkerJim_the_Lurker Posts: 336
    I think England have only won a World Cup under a Labour Government. Also true for Men’s Rugby Union (not true for League or the Woman’s Rugby Union)

    Coincidence or causation. Who can know.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,499
    viewcode said:

    (presses button repeatedly)

    Wow! Gold, silver and bronze medals for the first three posts, and for a fourth, the FIFA Peace Prize.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,483
    Yes if we win it we'll have done it on Starmer's watch. A huge achievement by the team and a fitting legacy for him. Fitting because he genuinely loves football. What a story. Let's all join together in willing it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,483

    I think England have only won a World Cup under a Labour Government. Also true for Men’s Rugby Union (not true for League or the Woman’s Rugby Union)

    Coincidence or causation. Who can know.

    It's causation imo. Labour fosters the collective over the individual, ie teams. There's no 'i' in team.
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,422
    I’m loving how Jude Bellingham is suddenly being revered as a great player rather than derided as was the case a few months back in the MSM, and also on here.

    Of course @Brixian59 and I knew he was class from the offset.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 13,018
    I think Starmer will be far better regarded by history than he is now. (Much of his legacy depends on what Reeves says in her eventual memoirs - Brown for example somehow persuaded Darling to write a comparative hagiography)

    Who knows with Binface though - will he be a good PM, I can't tell.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,992
    kinabalu said:

    I think England have only won a World Cup under a Labour Government. Also true for Men’s Rugby Union (not true for League or the Woman’s Rugby Union)

    Coincidence or causation. Who can know.

    It's causation imo. Labour fosters the collective over the individual, ie teams. There's no 'i' in team.
    Faldo and Murray came good under the Tories.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 13,018
    tlg86 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think England have only won a World Cup under a Labour Government. Also true for Men’s Rugby Union (not true for League or the Woman’s Rugby Union)

    Coincidence or causation. Who can know.

    It's causation imo. Labour fosters the collective over the individual, ie teams. There's no 'i' in team.
    Faldo and Murray came good under the Tories.
    PB came good under the Tories!
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 7,630
    edited 3:33PM
    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    And England won every single Test Match they played in that era very comfortably indeed (specifically by nine wickets). Yet naysayers still snipe about a supposed reverse Midas touch - the facts are clear.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,483
    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,483
    edited 3:39PM
    tlg86 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think England have only won a World Cup under a Labour Government. Also true for Men’s Rugby Union (not true for League or the Woman’s Rugby Union)

    Coincidence or causation. Who can know.

    It's causation imo. Labour fosters the collective over the individual, ie teams. There's no 'i' in team.
    Faldo and Murray came good under the Tories.
    Exactly - success for individuals. There is an 'i' in individual. Three of them even.
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,422
    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
    I’m sure this is meant as humour

    Italia 90 happened under the Tories.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 13,018
    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think England have only won a World Cup under a Labour Government. Also true for Men’s Rugby Union (not true for League or the Woman’s Rugby Union)

    Coincidence or causation. Who can know.

    It's causation imo. Labour fosters the collective over the individual, ie teams. There's no 'i' in team.
    Faldo and Murray came good under the Tories.
    Exactly - success for individuals. There is an 'i' in individual. Three of them even.
    A good witch-doctor can get the unwelcome duo out of you.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,951
    kinabalu said:

    I think England have only won a World Cup under a Labour Government. Also true for Men’s Rugby Union (not true for League or the Woman’s Rugby Union)

    Coincidence or causation. Who can know.

    It's causation imo. Labour fosters the collective over the individual, ie teams. There's no 'i' in team.
    There is a me though
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,620
    At a press conference on Thursday, the head of UK Counter Terrorism Policing, Laurence Taylor, said the threat from extreme-right wing terrorism was rising and had been a key driver of the decision to raise the national terror threat level from substantial to “severe” in May

    https://bsky.app/profile/lizziedearden.bsky.social/post/3mqjsnqpvfs24
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 40,878
    Question to Google AI:

    "Did the European aristocracy blame the print media for its loss of power in the 18th and 19th centuries?"

    Answer:

    "Yes, European aristocrats largely blamed the print media for eroding their status. They saw pamphlets and newspapers as dangerous tools that spread rebellious ideas to the lower classes. This loss of power began during the Enlightenment and exploded during the French Revolution in 1789."

    Very interesting. Those in power blaming the latest forms of media for their loss of influence.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,951
    Given the terroridm legislation today it will soon no doubt be an offence not to want England to win at football if you are English . Personally I hope we don’t . Cannot stand all the hero worship (they will be called heroes along with brave) etc . Most other sports I can get behind England but football attracts a yobbish crowd
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,795

    I think England have only won a World Cup under a Labour Government. Also true for Men’s Rugby Union (not true for League or the Woman’s Rugby Union)

    Coincidence or causation. Who can know.

    I think it's unlikely that we will be able to disprove either hypothesis during my lifetime.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,813
    Birmingham City failed to score a goal during the entire papacy of John Paul I. Chelsea failed to win a match except for a friendly during the same period.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,620
    Andy_JS said:

    Question to Google AI:

    "Did the European aristocracy blame the print media for its loss of power in the 18th and 19th centuries?"

    Answer:

    "Yes, European aristocrats largely blamed the print media for eroding their status. They saw pamphlets and newspapers as dangerous tools that spread rebellious ideas to the lower classes. This loss of power began during the Enlightenment and exploded during the French Revolution in 1789."

    Very interesting. Those in power blaming the latest forms of media for their loss of influence.

    So, you don't mind people commenting on Farage so much? Because that seemed to be your position earlier.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,113

    At a press conference on Thursday, the head of UK Counter Terrorism Policing, Laurence Taylor, said the threat from extreme-right wing terrorism was rising and had been a key driver of the decision to raise the national terror threat level from substantial to “severe” in May

    https://bsky.app/profile/lizziedearden.bsky.social/post/3mqjsnqpvfs24

    Twelve people have been arrested over an alleged right-wing terror threat to an Islamic event at a country estate in Suffolk
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl20x1ggpo
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 6,417
    The visuals and the reporting don't quite match for the Peak District fires.

    BBC News - Major incident declared over large Tintwistle Moor wildfire - BBC News
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07y4xy81reo?app-referrer=webview

    The satellite image clearly shows it is the Tintwistle fire, north of the chain of Longdendale reservoirs, that is sending smoke across Greater Manchester, whilst the Dovestone fire is showing as a comparative wisp in top of frame to the east of that reservoir.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,795
    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
    I’m sure this is meant as humour

    Italia 90 happened under the Tories.
    As did Euro 96. As did South Africa 2018.

    Basically, under the Conservatives we repeatedly fell at the Semi Finals.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,951
    algarkirk said:

    Birmingham City failed to score a goal during the entire papacy of John Paul I. Chelsea failed to win a match except for a friendly during the same period.

    algarkirk said:

    Birmingham City failed to score a goal during the entire papacy of John Paul I. Chelsea failed to win a match except for a friendly during the same period.

    At the rate of expansion of the World Cup the pope will be the gaffer of the Vatican side in group z playing the fed states of Micronesia
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 13,018

    Given the terroridm legislation today it will soon no doubt be an offence not to want England to win at football if you are English . Personally I hope we don’t . Cannot stand all the hero worship (they will be called heroes along with brave) etc . Most other sports I can get behind England but football attracts a yobbish crowd

    The 1966 highlights have been a curse on our nation. So, yes, like you I hope England don't win. Now if Esso had done a cardboard thing where you could store the cheap-metal medals of each of the players, well then I might have thought differently.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,936
    edited 3:52PM
    Omnium said:

    I think Starmer will be far better regarded by history than he is now. (Much of his legacy depends on what Reeves says in her eventual memoirs - Brown for example somehow persuaded Darling to write a comparative hagiography)

    Who knows with Binface though - will he be a good PM, I can't tell.

    Being very optimistic (i.e. that Burnham does well enough to win re-election in 2029, and so breaks Britain's run of short tenure PMs) I could see Starmer being thrown in with May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak as the last of Britain's difficult post-Brexit decade of five PMs. But I wouldn't be surprised if Britain ended up with a baker's dozen of PMs in two decades, and Starmer is rather lost in the middle.

    Even though Starmer's record of losing his position barely two years after winning a landslide is extraordinary, he benefits from the comparison with Liz Truss, so I don't see him being overly denigrated, but I can't think of anything he has done that you could hang a good opinion onto.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,483
    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
    I’m sure this is meant as humour

    Italia 90 happened under the Tories.
    Yes, not 100% serious. A grain of truth though. There has to be a grain otherwise it's just being silly and wasting PB threadspace.

    That's right about Italia 90 but it ended for us in the semis remember. So let's not dwell too much on that.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,452
    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
    I’m sure this is meant as humour

    Italia 90 happened under the Tories.
    As did Euro 96. As did South Africa 2018.

    Basically, under the Conservatives we repeatedly fell at the Semi Finals.
    Russia 2018?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 23,805
    Taz said:

    I’m loving how Jude Bellingham is suddenly being revered as a great player rather than derided as was the case a few months back in the MSM, and also on here.

    Of course @Brixian59 and I knew he was class from the offset.

    I can't help but think that his 'crime' is not to play in the Premiership, so folk over here don't get to see him week in, week out.

    He is class. The goals against Norway would be drooled over if it was Messi, MBappe or Ronaldo (from a few years ago). He is clearly one of our only two world class players.

    It may be enough to reach the final but I fear it won't get us over the line for the whole shebang.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,661
    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
    Impoverished banana republics often do well at football - it gives the favela dwelling masses some hope. Starmer has certainly helped us on our way there. Oddly, doing very well in beauty pageants goes alongside it, so perhaps Miss World success beckons.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,494
    Andy_JS said:

    Question to Google AI:

    "Did the European aristocracy blame the print media for its loss of power in the 18th and 19th centuries?"

    Answer:

    "Yes, European aristocrats largely blamed the print media for eroding their status. They saw pamphlets and newspapers as dangerous tools that spread rebellious ideas to the lower classes. This loss of power began during the Enlightenment and exploded during the French Revolution in 1789."

    Very interesting. Those in power blaming the latest forms of media for their loss of influence.

    So you think Prince Harry was on to something? (As opposed to simply being on something).
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,951

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
    Impoverished banana republics often do well at football - it gives the favela dwelling masses some hope. Starmer has certainly helped us on our way there. Oddly, doing very well in beauty pageants goes alongside it, so perhaps Miss World success beckons.
    Weight loss jabs level the playing field for us a bit competing in Miss World I would think
  • boulayboulay Posts: 9,206

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
    Impoverished banana republics often do well at football - it gives the favela dwelling masses some hope. Starmer has certainly helped us on our way there. Oddly, doing very well in beauty pageants goes alongside it, so perhaps Miss World success beckons.
    Like France, Germany, Italy and Spain?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,494
    Omnium said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think England have only won a World Cup under a Labour Government. Also true for Men’s Rugby Union (not true for League or the Woman’s Rugby Union)

    Coincidence or causation. Who can know.

    It's causation imo. Labour fosters the collective over the individual, ie teams. There's no 'i' in team.
    Faldo and Murray came good under the Tories.
    Exactly - success for individuals. There is an 'i' in individual. Three of them even.
    A good witch-doctor can get the unwelcome duo out of you.
    How many letters?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,483

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
    Impoverished banana republics often do well at football - it gives the favela dwelling masses some hope. Starmer has certainly helped us on our way there. Oddly, doing very well in beauty pageants goes alongside it, so perhaps Miss World success beckons.
    Well not really but lol.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,795
    boulay said:

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
    Impoverished banana republics often do well at football - it gives the favela dwelling masses some hope. Starmer has certainly helped us on our way there. Oddly, doing very well in beauty pageants goes alongside it, so perhaps Miss World success beckons.
    Like France, Germany, Italy and Spain?
    Exactly!
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 64,795

    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
    I’m sure this is meant as humour

    Italia 90 happened under the Tories.
    As did Euro 96. As did South Africa 2018.

    Basically, under the Conservatives we repeatedly fell at the Semi Finals.
    Russia 2018?
    Yes, that's the one. I get confused between my racist, resource dependent States.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 13,018
    DavidL said:

    Omnium said:

    kinabalu said:

    tlg86 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think England have only won a World Cup under a Labour Government. Also true for Men’s Rugby Union (not true for League or the Woman’s Rugby Union)

    Coincidence or causation. Who can know.

    It's causation imo. Labour fosters the collective over the individual, ie teams. There's no 'i' in team.
    Faldo and Murray came good under the Tories.
    Exactly - success for individuals. There is an 'i' in individual. Three of them even.
    A good witch-doctor can get the unwelcome duo out of you.
    How many letters?
    You're going to the wrong witch doctor - mine just shakes some broken bones.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,936

    Taz said:

    I’m loving how Jude Bellingham is suddenly being revered as a great player rather than derided as was the case a few months back in the MSM, and also on here.

    Of course @Brixian59 and I knew he was class from the offset.

    I can't help but think that his 'crime' is not to play in the Premiership, so folk over here don't get to see him week in, week out.

    He is class. The goals against Norway would be drooled over if it was Messi, MBappe or Ronaldo (from a few years ago). He is clearly one of our only two world class players.

    It may be enough to reach the final but I fear it won't get us over the line for the whole shebang.
    One of the features of football as a team sport is that it is very low-scoring. This means that there is a greater chance of the underdog winning, because in a higher scoring game random factors, or exceptional moments of individual brilliance, are less likely to make a difference.

    So I think there's a fair old chance for England.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,774
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tres said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dopermean said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @annmarie

    Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.

    US markets open in only a few hours.

    We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
    Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.

    Trump is pathetic.
    So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
    TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.

    And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
    Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.

    I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
    I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
    Don’t be sympathetic to them!

    So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
    Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though.
    TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
    Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.

    Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
    What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
    I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.

    But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
    While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
    I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.

    Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
    He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
    Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.

    There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
    The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.

    Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
    If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?



    More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
    Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.

    But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
    You said “He’s a rapist”

    The jury said “No”.

    I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.

    That doesn’t make him a rapist.

    The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
    On the technical point of whether we can call him a rapist, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

    On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
    As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

    I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
    You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?

    I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
    Multiple women?
    he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
    So still not convicted of anything then?

    Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?

    If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.

    The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
    The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.

    Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
    You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.

    There’s no evidence that this is the case.

    My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
    In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
    Yes it’s possibly one of the only cases in legal history where the (politically-appointed) judge tried to overturn the view of the jury, in saying that someone was guilty of something that the jury had explicitly rejected.

    The jury was asked the question and gave their answer.

    The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
    That's dishonest, Sandpit.
    The jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted her; the judge said that finding - forcible manual penetration without consent - meets the common definition of rape, which is true.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 43,688
    @klasfeldreports.com‬

    A federal judge NULLIFIES the purported “settlement” behind Trump’s $1.776B slush fund, finding there was never a “case or controversy” — and referring his attorney for possible professional discipline.

    Judge Williams also directs the clerk to send a copy of her order to where bar complaints against Todd Blanche and Stanley Woodward were filed — in New York and D.C., respectively.

    https://bsky.app/profile/klasfeldreports.com/post/3mqk2aiwchk2m
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,422

    At a press conference on Thursday, the head of UK Counter Terrorism Policing, Laurence Taylor, said the threat from extreme-right wing terrorism was rising and had been a key driver of the decision to raise the national terror threat level from substantial to “severe” in May

    https://bsky.app/profile/lizziedearden.bsky.social/post/3mqjsnqpvfs24

    There’s a certain subsection of people here who cannot wait to post and drag up any threat from Muslims and radical Islam and ignore other threats.

    Then there’s the other cheek of the arse……
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 6,417

    Omnium said:

    I think Starmer will be far better regarded by history than he is now. (Much of his legacy depends on what Reeves says in her eventual memoirs - Brown for example somehow persuaded Darling to write a comparative hagiography)

    Who knows with Binface though - will he be a good PM, I can't tell.

    Being very optimistic (i.e. that Burnham does well enough to win re-election in 2029, and so breaks Britain's run of short tenure PMs) I could see Starmer being thrown in with May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak as the last of Britain's difficult post-Brexit decade of five PMs. But I wouldn't be surprised if Britain ended up with a baker's dozen of PMs in two decades, and Starmer is rather lost in the middle.

    Even though Starmer's record of losing his position barely two years after winning a landslide is extraordinary, he benefits from the comparison with Liz Truss, so I don't see him being overly denigrated, but I can't think of anything he has done that you could hang a good opinion onto.
    Liz lost the Queen, Starmer could win the World Cup, the Labour leadership timetable ensuring Burnham misses by a day (or two days if the win means the PMial transition is delayed by a national celebration).

    Starmer would just love that, not least as an emulation of Wilson as well as denying Burnham that glory.
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,422

    Taz said:

    I’m loving how Jude Bellingham is suddenly being revered as a great player rather than derided as was the case a few months back in the MSM, and also on here.

    Of course @Brixian59 and I knew he was class from the offset.

    I can't help but think that his 'crime' is not to play in the Premiership, so folk over here don't get to see him week in, week out.

    He is class. The goals against Norway would be drooled over if it was Messi, MBappe or Ronaldo (from a few years ago). He is clearly one of our only two world class players.

    It may be enough to reach the final but I fear it won't get us over the line for the whole shebang.
    Yes, I think that’s a part of it. Plying his trade in Germany, then Spain, clearly works against him.

    There’s only one team in the U.K. he’d play for in my view and we’re not in the Premiership,yet.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,774
    And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest.
    Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States

    So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,813

    Given the terroridm legislation today it will soon no doubt be an offence not to want England to win at football if you are English . Personally I hope we don’t . Cannot stand all the hero worship (they will be called heroes along with brave) etc . Most other sports I can get behind England but football attracts a yobbish crowd

    This is troubling. In the PB prediction competition I made the suggestion that Starmer would be PM at the end of the year, and that Argentina would win the World Cup.

    Now that Starmer is about to be unpersonned and it is an offence not to support England on Wednesday, should I just hand myself in at the police station (if I can find one open in Cumberland) or wait for the inevitable 3 am knock on the door? Fourteen years feels a long time for these offences.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,813
    Nigelb said:

    And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest.
    Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States

    So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.

    Is this a discussion about words, concepts or actualities? It gets confusing if the three are not carefully distinguished.

  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,264
    I see loser Trump is dicking around with Iran again.

    Shit or get off the pot.

    Should be gunning for regime change and not perpetual meaningless conflict that messes with the Strait but does not get anything changed.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,113
    Microsoft admits Windows 11 has a GDID tracker with no off switch, first documented publicly in an FBI hacker complaint
    ...
    A Global Device ID (GDID) is a permanent, unique digital fingerprint that Microsoft automatically assigns to your computer when you install Windows or sign into a Microsoft account.

    Microsoft uses it to manage software licensing and Windows Store apps, but because it links all your online activities on that computer back to a single identity, law enforcement can use it to track a device’s true owner across the internet

    https://www.windowslatest.com/2026/07/10/you-cant-fully-disable-microsofts-gdid-windows-11-tracker-but-these-settings-limit-what-it-captures/
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,803
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I’m loving how Jude Bellingham is suddenly being revered as a great player rather than derided as was the case a few months back in the MSM, and also on here.

    Of course @Brixian59 and I knew he was class from the offset.

    I can't help but think that his 'crime' is not to play in the Premiership, so folk over here don't get to see him week in, week out.

    He is class. The goals against Norway would be drooled over if it was Messi, MBappe or Ronaldo (from a few years ago). He is clearly one of our only two world class players.

    It may be enough to reach the final but I fear it won't get us over the line for the whole shebang.
    Yes, I think that’s a part of it. Plying his trade in Germany, then Spain, clearly works against him.

    There’s only one team in the U.K. he’d play for in my view and we’re not in the Premiership,yet.
    Halesowen Town?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,992
    edited 4:21PM

    Taz said:

    I’m loving how Jude Bellingham is suddenly being revered as a great player rather than derided as was the case a few months back in the MSM, and also on here.

    Of course @Brixian59 and I knew he was class from the offset.

    I can't help but think that his 'crime' is not to play in the Premiership, so folk over here don't get to see him week in, week out.

    He is class. The goals against Norway would be drooled over if it was Messi, MBappe or Ronaldo (from a few years ago). He is clearly one of our only two world class players.

    It may be enough to reach the final but I fear it won't get us over the line for the whole shebang.
    I've seen him in the flesh twice. It was obvious that you did not want to give him any space in and around your own penalty area. He's absolutely lethal when he gets in the box.

    But...he was largely ineffectual and became more and more annoyed as the matches went on.

    I do worry about him against better opposition. I think now is the time to deploy Rogers on the left to provide additional support in midfield.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 25,803

    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
    I’m sure this is meant as humour

    Italia 90 happened under the Tories.
    As did Euro 96. As did South Africa 2018.

    Basically, under the Conservatives we repeatedly fell at the Semi Finals.
    Russia 2018?
    Is that your prediction for today's casualty figures?
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,422
    edited 4:24PM

    I see loser Trump is dicking around with Iran again.

    Shit or get off the pot.

    Should be gunning for regime change and not perpetual meaningless conflict that messes with the Strait but does not get anything changed.

    A warmonger speaks 😂

    They failed initially, how on earth do you expect them to deliver it ? Given your extensive military expertise .

    They’re useless. Mossad’s plan to put Ahmedinajad in as puppet leader was never viable.

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    I’m loving how Jude Bellingham is suddenly being revered as a great player rather than derided as was the case a few months back in the MSM, and also on here.

    Of course @Brixian59 and I knew he was class from the offset.

    I can't help but think that his 'crime' is not to play in the Premiership, so folk over here don't get to see him week in, week out.

    He is class. The goals against Norway would be drooled over if it was Messi, MBappe or Ronaldo (from a few years ago). He is clearly one of our only two world class players.

    It may be enough to reach the final but I fear it won't get us over the line for the whole shebang.
    Yes, I think that’s a part of it. Plying his trade in Germany, then Spain, clearly works against him.

    There’s only one team in the U.K. he’d play for in my view and we’re not in the Premiership,yet.
    Halesowen Town?
    I used to work not far from them.

    He’s a Bluenose, always will be.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,481
    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Question to Google AI:

    "Did the European aristocracy blame the print media for its loss of power in the 18th and 19th centuries?"

    Answer:

    "Yes, European aristocrats largely blamed the print media for eroding their status. They saw pamphlets and newspapers as dangerous tools that spread rebellious ideas to the lower classes. This loss of power began during the Enlightenment and exploded during the French Revolution in 1789."

    Very interesting. Those in power blaming the latest forms of media for their loss of influence.

    So you think Prince Harry was on to something? (As opposed to simply being on something).
    Wrong then, and wrong now.

    (Although it’s going to be enormously entertaining to see how Mr Sussex deals with what could be eight figures in costs. I’m sure the lawyers of the day were somewhat more vicarious when it came to royalty).
  • trukattrukat Posts: 136
    Nigelb said:

    And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest.
    Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States

    So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.

    Why did this happen then?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrw57q4y9do
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 9,396
    If we are doing semi bullshit links between politics and football, check this out: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/13/andy-burnham-body-of-work-football?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,483

    Taz said:

    I’m loving how Jude Bellingham is suddenly being revered as a great player rather than derided as was the case a few months back in the MSM, and also on here.

    Of course @Brixian59 and I knew he was class from the offset.

    I can't help but think that his 'crime' is not to play in the Premiership, so folk over here don't get to see him week in, week out.

    He is class. The goals against Norway would be drooled over if it was Messi, MBappe or Ronaldo (from a few years ago). He is clearly one of our only two world class players.

    It may be enough to reach the final but I fear it won't get us over the line for the whole shebang.
    One of the features of football as a team sport is that it is very low-scoring. This means that there is a greater chance of the underdog winning, because in a higher scoring game random factors, or exceptional moments of individual brilliance, are less likely to make a difference.

    So I think there's a fair old chance for England.
    That is right. Eg France would almost certainly finish above England in a league competition but if that's the WC final - one game - we have a decent chance of beating them. If we play well and 'things' fall our way we probably WILL beat them. But let's not jinx it. Semi first. Argentina. That's a toss up.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,481
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tres said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dopermean said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @annmarie

    Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.

    US markets open in only a few hours.

    We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
    Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.

    Trump is pathetic.
    So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
    TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.

    And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
    Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.

    I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
    I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
    Don’t be sympathetic to them!

    So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
    Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though.
    TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
    Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.

    Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
    What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
    I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.

    But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
    While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
    I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.

    Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
    He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
    Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.

    There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
    The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.

    Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
    If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?



    More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
    Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.

    But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
    You said “He’s a rapist”

    The jury said “No”.

    I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.

    That doesn’t make him a rapist.

    The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
    On the technical point of whether we can call him a rapist, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

    On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
    As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

    I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
    You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?

    I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
    Multiple women?
    he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
    So still not convicted of anything then?

    Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?

    If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.

    The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
    The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.

    Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
    You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.

    There’s no evidence that this is the case.

    My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
    In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
    Yes it’s possibly one of the only cases in legal history where the (politically-appointed) judge tried to overturn the view of the jury, in saying that someone was guilty of something that the jury had explicitly rejected.

    The jury was asked the question and gave their answer.

    The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
    That's dishonest, Sandpit.
    The jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted her; the judge said that finding - forcible manual penetration without consent - meets the common definition of rape, which is true.
    No, the jury were asked a specific question and gave their answer.

    The judge then decided that their answer actually meant the opposite to the answer the jury gave in writing.

    That’s a judge problem.
  • Omnium said:

    I think Starmer will be far better regarded by history than he is now. (Much of his legacy depends on what Reeves says in her eventual memoirs - Brown for example somehow persuaded Darling to write a comparative hagiography)

    Who knows with Binface though - will he be a good PM, I can't tell.

    We will have to disagree. I think he will still be reviled in two centuries, and rightly so. Being positive I look at Burnham and think like most farmers that he might not be any better, but can't be any worse. The only one who could be worse is Reed.

    Starmer will be remembered for the checks and balances put in place to prevent another of his ilk ever being elected even to parliament again.

    I do not fear gerrimandering. The French Second Republic was built on it and just like the UK in 1970 every attempt resulted in the perpetrator losing the next election
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,774
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tres said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dopermean said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @annmarie

    Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.

    US markets open in only a few hours.

    We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
    Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.

    Trump is pathetic.
    So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
    TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.

    And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
    Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.

    I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
    I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
    Don’t be sympathetic to them!

    So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
    Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though.
    TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
    Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.

    Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
    What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
    I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.

    But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
    While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
    I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.

    Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
    He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
    Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.

    There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
    The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.

    Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
    If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?



    More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
    Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.

    But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
    You said “He’s a rapist”

    The jury said “No”.

    I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.

    That doesn’t make him a rapist.

    The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
    On the technical point of whether we can call him a rapist, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

    On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
    As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

    I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
    You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?

    I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
    Multiple women?
    he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
    So still not convicted of anything then?

    Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?

    If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.

    The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
    The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.

    Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
    You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.

    There’s no evidence that this is the case.

    My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
    In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
    Yes it’s possibly one of the only cases in legal history where the (politically-appointed) judge tried to overturn the view of the jury, in saying that someone was guilty of something that the jury had explicitly rejected.

    The jury was asked the question and gave their answer.

    The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
    That's dishonest, Sandpit.
    The jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted her; the judge said that finding - forcible manual penetration without consent - meets the common definition of rape, which is true.
    No, the jury were asked a specific question and gave their answer.

    The judge then decided that their answer actually meant the opposite to the answer the jury gave in writing.

    That’s a judge problem.
    The jury were asked another question, which you consistently elide, and gave an answer to that, too.

    Do you think that finding was an irrelevance, or that forcible manual penetration is OK ?
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,422
    LOL

    Labour plotting monthly tax bills for the “self employed”

    https://x.com/tesssummers98/status/2076677724173681039?s=61
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 3,378

    Omnium said:

    I think Starmer will be far better regarded by history than he is now. (Much of his legacy depends on what Reeves says in her eventual memoirs - Brown for example somehow persuaded Darling to write a comparative hagiography)

    Who knows with Binface though - will he be a good PM, I can't tell.

    We will have to disagree. I think he will still be reviled in two centuries, and rightly so. Being positive I look at Burnham and think like most farmers that he might not be any better, but can't be any worse. The only one who could be worse is Reed.

    Starmer will be remembered for the checks and balances put in place to prevent another of his ilk ever being elected even to parliament again.

    I do not fear gerrimandering. The French Second Republic was built on it and just like the UK in 1970 every attempt resulted in the perpetrator losing the next election
    Utter hysterical nonsense, the only PM in the last 20 years whose "legacy" might still be remembered in 50 years is Cameron for his Brexit fuck up.
    That is the only government act that might still be consequential in 50 years, everything else will be a blip.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,113
    rkrkrk said:

    If we are doing semi bullshit links between politics and football, check this out: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/jul/13/andy-burnham-body-of-work-football?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    Norway also has a quasi-national youth system, and I was wondering just this morning if it might be a model for Scotland which used to send a conveyor belt of top players south of the border. What has gone wrong with Scottish football is a mystery for the ages but this might be worth trying.
  • The_WoodpeckerThe_Woodpecker Posts: 592
    Omnium said:

    tlg86 said:

    kinabalu said:

    I think England have only won a World Cup under a Labour Government. Also true for Men’s Rugby Union (not true for League or the Woman’s Rugby Union)

    Coincidence or causation. Who can know.

    It's causation imo. Labour fosters the collective over the individual, ie teams. There's no 'i' in team.
    Faldo and Murray came good under the Tories.
    PB came good under the Tories!
    What!??

    PB was going long before the Tories/Coalition got in.

    I had my only victory in a tipping contest on here back in 2007. That was PB at its best!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 37,113
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tres said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dopermean said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @annmarie

    Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.

    US markets open in only a few hours.

    We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
    Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.

    Trump is pathetic.
    So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
    TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.

    And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
    Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.

    I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
    I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
    Don’t be sympathetic to them!

    So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
    Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though.
    TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
    Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.

    Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
    What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
    I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.

    But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
    While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
    I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.

    Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
    He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
    Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.

    There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
    The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.

    Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
    If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?



    More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
    Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.

    But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
    You said “He’s a rapist”

    The jury said “No”.

    I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.

    That doesn’t make him a rapist.

    The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
    On the technical point of whether we can call him a rapist, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

    On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
    As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

    I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
    You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?

    I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
    Multiple women?
    he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
    So still not convicted of anything then?

    Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?

    If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.

    The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
    The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.

    Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
    You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.

    There’s no evidence that this is the case.

    My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
    In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
    Yes it’s possibly one of the only cases in legal history where the (politically-appointed) judge tried to overturn the view of the jury, in saying that someone was guilty of something that the jury had explicitly rejected.

    The jury was asked the question and gave their answer.

    The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
    That's dishonest, Sandpit.
    The jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted her; the judge said that finding - forcible manual penetration without consent - meets the common definition of rape, which is true.
    No, the jury were asked a specific question and gave their answer.

    The judge then decided that their answer actually meant the opposite to the answer the jury gave in writing.

    That’s a judge problem.
    Time to agree to differ?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,734

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/boost-for-skills-and-research-as-35-universities-across-the-uk-partner-in-new-defence-alliance

    A new Defence Universities Alliance with 35 UK universities will help strengthen defence research, build critical skills and support the UK's future defence capability.

    Its great, but it needs to overcome the fact that university engineering and science departments are dominated by foreign students these days and, as foreign nationals, those students can't work in any sensitive defence areas.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,623
    edited 4:37PM
    Taz said:

    LOL

    Labour plotting monthly tax bills for the “self employed”

    https://x.com/tesssummers98/status/2076677724173681039?s=61

    Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,734
    algarkirk said:

    Birmingham City failed to score a goal during the entire papacy of John Paul I. Chelsea failed to win a match except for a friendly during the same period.

    Clearly the Pope had a thing against teams with a blue strip.

    Quite right too.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,734
    carnforth said:

    Taz said:

    LOL

    Labour plotting monthly tax bills for the “self employed”

    https://x.com/tesssummers98/status/2076677724173681039?s=61

    Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
    I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 13,018

    Omnium said:

    I think Starmer will be far better regarded by history than he is now. (Much of his legacy depends on what Reeves says in her eventual memoirs - Brown for example somehow persuaded Darling to write a comparative hagiography)

    Who knows with Binface though - will he be a good PM, I can't tell.

    We will have to disagree. I think he will still be reviled in two centuries, and rightly so. Being positive I look at Burnham and think like most farmers that he might not be any better, but can't be any worse. The only one who could be worse is Reed.

    Starmer will be remembered for the checks and balances put in place to prevent another of his ilk ever being elected even to parliament again.

    I do not fear gerrimandering. The French Second Republic was built on it and just like the UK in 1970 every attempt resulted in the perpetrator losing the next election
    Bloody hell! That's a big dose of the optimism juice.
  • TresTres Posts: 3,760
    trukat said:

    Nigelb said:

    And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest.
    Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States

    So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.

    Why did this happen then?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrw57q4y9do
    cos american news organisations have to be seen to be bending the knee
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,936
    Trump apparently wants to charge 20% the value of cargo that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I think the fee Iran was trying to charge was lower.

    I can't imagine China agreeing to pay this to the US.

    Maybe Trump owns shares in pipeline construction companies and wants to further encourage emergency pipeline construction?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,494
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tres said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dopermean said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @annmarie

    Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.

    US markets open in only a few hours.

    We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
    Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.

    Trump is pathetic.
    So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
    TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.

    And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
    Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.

    I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
    I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
    Don’t be sympathetic to them!

    So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
    Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though.
    TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
    Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.

    Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
    What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
    I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.

    But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
    While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
    I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.

    Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
    He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
    Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.

    There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
    The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.

    Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
    If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?



    More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
    Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.

    But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
    You said “He’s a rapist”

    The jury said “No”.

    I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.

    That doesn’t make him a rapist.

    The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
    On the technical point of whether we can call him a rapist, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

    On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
    As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

    I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
    You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?

    I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
    Multiple women?
    he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
    So still not convicted of anything then?

    Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?

    If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.

    The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
    The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.

    Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
    You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.

    There’s no evidence that this is the case.

    My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
    In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
    Yes it’s possibly one of the only cases in legal history where the (politically-appointed) judge tried to overturn the view of the jury, in saying that someone was guilty of something that the jury had explicitly rejected.

    The jury was asked the question and gave their answer.

    The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
    That's dishonest, Sandpit.
    The jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted her; the judge said that finding - forcible manual penetration without consent - meets the common definition of rape, which is true.
    I do not know American law but under Scots law that would be a sexual assault under s2 of the Sexual Offences (S) Act, not a rape. Still a very serious matter, of course, but not rape.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,452

    rcs1000 said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
    I’m sure this is meant as humour

    Italia 90 happened under the Tories.
    As did Euro 96. As did South Africa 2018.

    Basically, under the Conservatives we repeatedly fell at the Semi Finals.
    Russia 2018?
    Is that your prediction for today's casualty figures?
    World Cup in South Africa was in the year 2010

    World Cup in Russia was in the year 2018.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,774
    edited 4:43PM
    trukat said:

    Nigelb said:

    And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest.
    Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States

    So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.

    Why did this happen then?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrw57q4y9do
    Because Stephanopoulos was not careful with his words, which is inexcusably careless for such an experienced journalist, and ABC were feeble in settling out of court for so large an amount.

    ..ABC News has agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape".
    George Stephanopoulos made the statements repeatedly during an interview on 10 March this year while challenging a congresswoman about her support for Trump.
    A jury in a civil case last year determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse", which has a specific definition under New York law...


    Trump was found liable for sexual assault, under NY state law.
    That finding makes it legally correct to call Trump a rapist under the common definition of rape in the US.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,481

    Trump apparently wants to charge 20% the value of cargo that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I think the fee Iran was trying to charge was lower.

    I can't imagine China agreeing to pay this to the US.

    Maybe Trump owns shares in pipeline construction companies and wants to further encourage emergency pipeline construction?

    The 20% is only for Iranian cargoes.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 80,079

    carnforth said:

    Taz said:

    LOL

    Labour plotting monthly tax bills for the “self employed”

    https://x.com/tesssummers98/status/2076677724173681039?s=61

    Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
    I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
    Every 6 months - one by March and one by September - if you meet the threshold for advance payments.

    It's a silly idea but then our whole tax system is built of silly and conflicting ideas.

    I'd be tempted to vote for any party that promised to abandon the whole lot and start again from scratch.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,774
    DavidL said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Tres said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Dopermean said:

    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    ydoethur said:

    Scott_xP said:

    @annmarie

    Iran Foreign Ministry says the agreement with the US has “undoubtedly entered a crisis phase,” spokesman Esmail Baghaei says in his weekly press conference. Says ships taking US parallel routes in Hormuz are at risk.

    US markets open in only a few hours.

    We must be a due a leak to Axios about how well negotiates are going???
    Need to get a real leader into the White House instead of the loser who is there who can get regime change in Iran.

    Trump is pathetic.
    So, to get regime change in Iran, you want regime change in the US? Do you suggest the same approach to achieving regime change, starting with bombing Washington?
    TBF, I'm sure I'm not the only person on this board who would be delighted to see the pseudo-religious grifting paedophiles with links to organised crime and holding power through dubious election results with the backing of more or less openly corrupt courts removed.

    And it would be good to see the back of the Ayatollahs too.
    Iran entered the negotiations not like the vanquished Party, but like the victors.

    I’d like all three sides to be replaced. The Mullahs, MAGA and the Far Right Israeli regime
    I wasn't at all sympathetic to the Iranian regime until Trump started bombing them. Now I'm not quite so sure!
    Don’t be sympathetic to them!

    So many of the problems in the Middle East of the past half century have Iran’s fingerprints all over them.
    Quite agree and not just the Middle East. They've been supplying drones to Russia AIUI. Don't THINK, but I may be wrong, that they helped the Taliban, though.
    TBH I was a bit surprised the Americans let the funerals go undisturbed.
    Indeed, Iran and Russia are the World’s two biggest problems at the moment, and it’s not surprising that they’re helping each other’s adventures.

    Letting funerals happen is good PR, there’s plenty of bad things you can say about Trump and Hegseth but they’re not that stupid.
    What about causing funerals? Is that also good PR?
    I don’t generally speak ill of the dead, it’s a very bad trend of recent years and I’m a generally positive person who sees the good in everyone, even if we fundamentally disagree on everything.

    But I have to admit I won’t shed a tear for Iranian and Russian leaders who find themselves six feet under, no matter how it happened.
    While I don't regard Trump as on the same level as these evil, murdering bastards, I won't weep for him either. He has not been a source of good for America, let alone the rest of the world.
    I know that I defend Trump more than most on here, but he really isn’t evil. Misguided, self-serving, unwilling to listen to others, guilty as charged. But that doesn’t make someone evil.

    Putin and Khomeni, they’re actually evil, people who have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
    He's a rapist. Is rape not evil?
    Evidence for “He’s a rapist”, given that he’s been convicted of no such offence.

    There was even a civil trial in the E Jean Carroll case, where that specific question was put to the jury, and they decided that he was not liable for rape.
    The judge said we can call him a rapist in lay terms, even if the court case made a distinction between forced digital penetration and forced penile penetration.

    Also, are you really going to claim that sexually assaulting a woman and forcing your fingers into her is not evil?
    If the jury is asked “Did person A rape person B?”, and that jury answers “No”, then why would anyone describe the person as “a rapist”?



    More than one person in the US has been sued by Trump, for repeating the suggestion that the jury thought otherwise.
    Trump sues lots of people. He rarely (never?) wins. It is legally safe to describe Trump as a rapist.

    But this is all you trying to distract from the point. Do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil?
    You said “He’s a rapist”

    The jury said “No”.

    I agree he’s a scumbag human being, I know a few arseholes like him and I have a personal dislike for that personality type.

    That doesn’t make him a rapist.

    The civil case itself is dodgy as hell for a whole number of reasons, starting with the victim being unable to narrow down even to the year in which it happened, but the jury was asked a very specific question and gave a very specific answer.
    On the technical point of whether we can call him a rapist, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/

    On the more important point, I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
    As far as I know, he’s never been convicted of a sexual assault. Feel free to present evidence to the contrary.

    I gave two examples of people I consider to be “evil”, both of whom have been responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of civilians.
    You made multiple posts where you wanted us to accept the decision of a jury that Trump did not (under a specific, technical definition) rape Carroll. That same jury said he sexually assaulted her. So, should we listen to what this jury said or not?

    I ask again: do you think the fact that Trump has sexually assaulted multiple women makes him evil? Yes or no?
    Multiple women?
    he is on the record '(bragging)' about molesting teenagers at the beauty pageants he used to run.
    So still not convicted of anything then?

    Are you happy for anyone else to be smeared as a sex offender in the absence of convictions for such, or is it only OrangeManBad?

    If you were talking about a British personality this site could be in trouble for your comments.

    The jury said “NO” when the question was “Did person A rape person B”. That’s really easy to understand.
    The jury said "YES" when the question was "Did person A sexually assault person B". The jury believed Carroll and, seemingly, two other women who described being sexually assaulted. The judge clarified that it's fine, based on this judgement, to call Trump a rapist. UK defamation law would also support that (as per the substantrial truth rule). Ergo, this site would not be in trouble for the comments made.

    Vladimir Putin hasn't been convicted of anything, but you're happy to call him evil... because he is. Trump has been found guilty of various acts (sexual assault, fraud, etc.). No, he's not as bad as Putin, but he's clearly evil. (Whether someone is "evil" is a judgement call and also safe under defamation law.)
    You started this by saying “Donald Trump is a rapist”.

    There’s no evidence that this is the case.

    My bar for “Evil” among living people is a handful including Putin, Khomeni, Kim, possibly Xi.
    In 2023, a jury in a New York civil trial found Trump liable for the sexual abuse and defamation of writer E. Jean Carroll, awarding her $5 million in damages. The jury did not find him liable for rape but the presiding judge later said that the jury's finding of sexual abuse met the common definition of rape.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/19/trump-carroll-judge-rape/
    Yes it’s possibly one of the only cases in legal history where the (politically-appointed) judge tried to overturn the view of the jury, in saying that someone was guilty of something that the jury had explicitly rejected.

    The jury was asked the question and gave their answer.

    The victim couldn’t even tell the court in which year this alleged ‘rape’ happened.
    That's dishonest, Sandpit.
    The jury found that Trump had sexually assaulted her; the judge said that finding - forcible manual penetration without consent - meets the common definition of rape, which is true.
    I do not know American law but under Scots law that would be a sexual assault under s2 of the Sexual Offences (S) Act, not a rape. Still a very serious matter, of course, but not rape.
    Some detail here.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,936
    Sandpit said:

    Trump apparently wants to charge 20% the value of cargo that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I think the fee Iran was trying to charge was lower.

    I can't imagine China agreeing to pay this to the US.

    Maybe Trump owns shares in pipeline construction companies and wants to further encourage emergency pipeline construction?

    The 20% is only for Iranian cargoes.
    The text I have seen is:

    From this point forward, the United States will be known as the "GUARDIAN OF THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ," and in this capacity and for the sake of FAIRNESS, will receive compensation of 20% of the value of all goods transported for any expenses necessary to ensure the security and protection of this extremely unstable region of the world.

    I see the word "all" and not the word "Iran".

    Where are you seeing different?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 34,734
    ydoethur said:

    carnforth said:

    Taz said:

    LOL

    Labour plotting monthly tax bills for the “self employed”

    https://x.com/tesssummers98/status/2076677724173681039?s=61

    Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
    I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
    Every 6 months - one by March and one by September - if you meet the threshold for advance payments.

    It's a silly idea but then our whole tax system is built of silly and conflicting ideas.

    I'd be tempted to vote for any party that promised to abandon the whole lot and start again from scratch.
    No it changed in April. Under the new MTD rules self employed have to submit accounts every 3 months if they earn more than £30K a year.

    For directors of limited companies where you are registerd for PAYE it is still yearly submissions but you do have to pay on account in 2 6 monthly tranches.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,452

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    England never lost a world cup match under Liz Truss's leadership.

    It's all about the actual tournament.

    3 ko games - came from behind to win 2 of them and the other one was the pressure cauldron of Mexico at the Azteca. That speaks to a great collective spirit.

    Hard to imagine this happening under a 'free market law of the jungle' tory government.
    Impoverished banana republics often do well at football - it gives the favela dwelling masses some hope. Starmer has certainly helped us on our way there. Oddly, doing very well in beauty pageants goes alongside it, so perhaps Miss World success beckons.
    Brazil are out already!
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 80,079

    Sandpit said:

    Trump apparently wants to charge 20% the value of cargo that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I think the fee Iran was trying to charge was lower.

    I can't imagine China agreeing to pay this to the US.

    Maybe Trump owns shares in pipeline construction companies and wants to further encourage emergency pipeline construction?

    The 20% is only for Iranian cargoes.
    The text I have seen is:

    From this point forward, the United States will be known as the "GUARDIAN OF THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ," and in this capacity and for the sake of FAIRNESS, will receive compensation of 20% of the value of all goods transported for any expenses necessary to ensure the security and protection of this extremely unstable region of the world.

    I see the word "all" and not the word "Iran".

    Where are you seeing different?
    I see a lunatic spouting bullshit. Simple geography means the US has as much chance of being the 'guardian of the Strait of Hormuz' as Amanda Spielman does of being named Teacher of the Year.

    If we are to assume that he hasn't lost what is left of his mind, something has panicked him, and panicked him badly, meaning he needs a very urgent distraction. It would be interesting to know what - and what else it might lead to.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 73,182

    Sandpit said:

    Trump apparently wants to charge 20% the value of cargo that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. I think the fee Iran was trying to charge was lower.

    I can't imagine China agreeing to pay this to the US.

    Maybe Trump owns shares in pipeline construction companies and wants to further encourage emergency pipeline construction?

    The 20% is only for Iranian cargoes.
    The text I have seen is:

    From this point forward, the United States will be known as the "GUARDIAN OF THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ," and in this capacity and for the sake of FAIRNESS, will receive compensation of 20% of the value of all goods transported for any expenses necessary to ensure the security and protection of this extremely unstable region of the world.

    I see the word "all" and not the word "Iran".

    Where are you seeing different?
    How is the US military the "guardian" of the Straits?

    He lives in a different world to the real world clearly.

    Maybe his core team just are not prepared to brief him with anything like the reality just like his bestie, Putin?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,481
    Nigelb said:

    trukat said:

    Nigelb said:

    And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest.
    Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States

    So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.

    Why did this happen then?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrw57q4y9do
    Because Stephanopoulos was not careful with his words, which is inexcusably careless for such an experienced journalist, and ABC were feeble in settling out of court for so large an amount.

    ..ABC News has agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape".
    George Stephanopoulos made the statements repeatedly during an interview on 10 March this year while challenging a congresswoman about her support for Trump.
    A jury in a civil case last year determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse", which has a specific definition under New York law...


    Trump was found liable for sexual assault, under NY state law.
    That finding makes it legally correct to call Trump a rapist under the common definition of rape in the US.
    The whole point is that Trump was, explicitly, by the jury, found *NOT* to have engaged in a rape.

  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,264
    ydoethur said:

    I see loser Trump is dicking around with Iran again.

    Shit or get off the pot.

    Should be gunning for regime change and not perpetual meaningless conflict that messes with the Strait but does not get anything changed.

    Agreed, but that requires two thirds majorities in both chambers.

    Oh, sorry, you meant Iran?
    LOL. :smiley:

    Either/or/and/both will do.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 80,079

    ydoethur said:

    carnforth said:

    Taz said:

    LOL

    Labour plotting monthly tax bills for the “self employed”

    https://x.com/tesssummers98/status/2076677724173681039?s=61

    Don't you already have to make six-monthly payments towards future tax bills if you earn enough self-employed. Though perhaps that's not in advance of earning, just in advance of the tax due date. It's been years since I had to.
    I think currently it is every 3 months for the self employed.
    Every 6 months - one by March and one by September - if you meet the threshold for advance payments.

    It's a silly idea but then our whole tax system is built of silly and conflicting ideas.

    I'd be tempted to vote for any party that promised to abandon the whole lot and start again from scratch.
    No it changed in April. Under the new MTD rules self employed have to submit accounts every 3 months if they earn more than £30K a year.

    For directors of limited companies where you are registerd for PAYE it is still yearly submissions but you do have to pay on account in 2 6 monthly tranches.
    Yes, but you don't have to *pay* every three months, which is one of the things that makes MTD pointless as well as time consuming and expensive.

    If I were feeling malicious, I would suggest that both of these nonsenses are less to do with managing a functioning tax system than a fairly senior civil servant at the Treasury, or a team of them, anxious to show impact in some way while angling for a promotion. Despite the fact the mere ideas show them as unfit to manage the accounts for a village hall trust.

    *pauses*

    *thinks*

    You know, I am feeling quite malicious...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 73,182
    Tice: "We will miss [Ann] dearly. And I also think that the the Scottish whisky industry has lost a very discerning customer."

    I did not know this about Widdecombe - seems she liked the water of life.

  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,264
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    trukat said:

    Nigelb said:

    And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest.
    Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States

    So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.

    Why did this happen then?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrw57q4y9do
    Because Stephanopoulos was not careful with his words, which is inexcusably careless for such an experienced journalist, and ABC were feeble in settling out of court for so large an amount.

    ..ABC News has agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape".
    George Stephanopoulos made the statements repeatedly during an interview on 10 March this year while challenging a congresswoman about her support for Trump.
    A jury in a civil case last year determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse", which has a specific definition under New York law...


    Trump was found liable for sexual assault, under NY state law.
    That finding makes it legally correct to call Trump a rapist under the common definition of rape in the US.
    The whole point is that Trump was, explicitly, by the jury, found *NOT* to have engaged in a rape.

    You don't prove a negative.

    It was not proven, that is not the same as proven not to happen.

    He should be called a sexual abuser not a rapist IMHO as that is what he was found guilty in. And its not a better thing.
  • trukattrukat Posts: 136
    Nigelb said:

    trukat said:

    Nigelb said:

    And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest.
    Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States

    So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.

    Why did this happen then?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrw57q4y9do
    Because Stephanopoulos was not careful with his words, which is inexcusably careless for such an experienced journalist, and ABC were feeble in settling out of court for so large an amount.

    ..ABC News has agreed to pay $15m (£12m) to US President-elect Donald Trump to settle a defamation lawsuit after its star anchor falsely said he had been found "liable for rape".
    George Stephanopoulos made the statements repeatedly during an interview on 10 March this year while challenging a congresswoman about her support for Trump.
    A jury in a civil case last year determined Trump was liable for "sexual abuse", which has a specific definition under New York law...


    Trump was found liable for sexual assault, under NY state law.
    That finding makes it legally correct to call Trump a rapist under the common definition of rape in the US.
    So you can call trump a rapist but not "liable for rape"? I do not quite see how that works. But you call him what you want, thx for the answer.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,620
    trukat said:

    Nigelb said:

    And pretending the judge made up the law in this case is equally dishonest.
    Forcible manual penetration meets not just "the common definition" of rape, but also the legal definition, in several US jurisdictions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_laws_in_the_United_States

    So yes, it is entirely permissible in law to call Trump a rapist.

    Why did this happen then?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgrw57q4y9do
    ABC were scared of what Trump's administration could do to them, so they settled. Call it a bribe.
Sign In or Register to comment.