Rayvin

Think this is spot on actually. And I suppose some would argue that Southgate managed England exceptionally well and had them achieve more than anyone else in living memory. But then others look at his reign and think that we could have had so much more if he'd just trusted his players more and went for it. Kinda curious where @Renton would line up on that argument actually, wonder if it's a risk management style that separates people on this.

He's ceding ground to the far right philosophically. I acknowledge the disagreements elsewhere but I suppose I'm referring to his initial pledges.

Ah, then they're safe. Fair.

Presumably with both the house and senate under republican control, along with the supreme court, an amendment should be possible for them? I mean what other structure would they need to control?

I think the main issue with Starmer is exactly what SBTP says, he's a coward. He's got a massive majority and yet acts as if there's only one seat in it. Fuck the press, fuck the Tories - who knows what the world looks like in 5 years ffs. There's no point worrying about that now, nothing they're doing at this point will be remembered by anyone by the time the next GE comes along. We need an Obama or a Blair, and instead we've got a Chamberlain - which would be understandable if it was actually working. But it's not. He's being eviscerated all over the place, looks weak to all sides. Starmer feels like a man who doesn't trust himself - he's abandoned a great many things he believed in, which should have formed the strong foundations he went into office with. He's someone who reacts to things, rather than sets his own agenda. Doesn't have the balls to impose himself. Let's hope he's just keeping the seat warm for someone better...

How far fetched is it to imagine that Trump changes the constitution to permit non-natural born citizen to become President? To me that feels more likely than any sort of coup or dismantling of democracy.

Makes a difference to you though. Increasingly I think that's all we can do, stand up for what we believe in just for our own sake.

I personally feel nowhere near enough is made out of Farage's past either tbh.

I was reading just before that the reason in particular Israel have sort of walked into this one is because Netanyahu refuses to launch an independent inquiry into the initial attack by Hamas, fearing it will expose him as being responsible for security failures. Had he done this, the arrest warrant wouldn't have been issued as the ICC would have entrusted the process to Israel's courts. He will have known this, so he clearly has something to hide. I think it's clear anyway that the focus of this war has switched from defeating Hamas to expanding Israeli land though.

I would also add that whether they voted for it or not, we democratically decided to make the country poorer. That impacts all of us. This is just a way that it will now impact them. No one escapes Brexit induced poverty whether they deserve it or not.

In fairness, I don't consider JOB to be a very honest debater most of the time in general and I do agree with your point there. It feels like the guy is basically saying that if the value of his land is over the threshold he's going to have to summon up a large amount of money from essentially nowhere against a 30k pa wage in order to keep it 'as is'. So I do sort of understand that. I would argue perhaps a better way of doing this would be to tax it at point of sale. Whenever the land is sold, it is taxed an appropriate level to compensate for having avoided inheritance tax. That said, Labour seem to be arguing that this isn't going to impact the vast majority of farmers so I'm not sure if this bloke would even be affected.

I can't help but feel that farmers sort of deserve whatever this is about after Brexit... but this one at least seems fucking angry

Absolutely spot on.

I'd prefer you didn't go mate, if that's worth anything. Even I get piled on in politics chat sometimes - that said, it's worth understanding that most of this forum is made up of lefties who are fucking angry at the world. Whether you agree or not, our vision of how things are is intensely bleak and getting worse by the day.

Normally I don't think I'd bother but I didn't have TDS down as this sort of poster - and I felt that maybe it was an honest enquiry and that perhaps some resistance to Musk's bullshit might be all that was needed. I fail to appreciate of course that everyone already has their opinion set in stone before anything is said. I was kind of interested myself in why it had happened though.

That's not me arguing this issue. That's me earnestly wanting an asteroid to wipe me out before Musk's banal idiocy ruins the entire Western world. Maybe I can find a hotel to be burned alive in the next time the sub 80 IQs gather.

Kill me now. We're all fucking doomed.

Mate, I've really tried but you're not interested in my reasoning. Fair enough, but you've got nothing to say on this in response other than refusing to acknowledge this issue on the level of detail that would be necessary to form any sort of judgement. So I'm done with this now.

The one on the shorter sentence is being released apparently - from what I can see he didn't actually carry out the violence which is presumably why. He got the manslaughter charge seemingly because he supplied the weapon to the guy who did (the longer sentence). That's my reading of it anyway. Why the fuck I've spent so much time on this is beyond me, but what is clear is that there are a lot of details to this that Musk and friends are willfully ignoring to be able to whip up hysteria.

If it was that simple, I would say no. But then I don't consider it that simple whatsoever, so again, I feel the question isn't relevant. Two months for inciting a riot that could have led to people being killed and mass violence if strong action wasn't taken (and those people were warned in real time but continued their stupidity anyway) versus a teenager stabbing a guy in the hand during a scuffle between two gangs (where the perpetrator's gang was the one being pursued) and unfortunately nicking a major blood vessel. Taking all the details out makes it sound bad, but honestly isn't a remotely fair way of interpreting it. It lacks all context. EDIT - actually the more i look at it, the more I feel like the guy who is being released was only actually responsible for sourcing the machete, not the actual killing blow or associated violence. I'm not positive on that but it appears to be what the court notes are saying. So it's 6 months for buying a machete that he knew would likely be used in violence.

But for the record, I trust the judges to know what is right or not based on their experience interpreting the law, and not random people on the internet with no information/evidence/data about it.

The fact that you're posing that question to me after everything I just wrote indicates to me that you're operating ideologically and not with interest in the facts of the matter. Why is your question relevant? A judge in 2024 sentenced this man with a specific ruling that while it was manslaughter, it was the lowest form of GBH possible because he stabbed him in the hand/wrist with no intent at all to kill. Then Labour release lower violence offenders which, on the judge's original decision, happens to include this guy. On a technicality. Now explain to me why your question, which seems to imply that Labour are actively responsible for both decisions, is relevant?

And this level of effort is beyond right wing media, Elon bellend Musk, and associated right wing asshats.

Right, I went and looked into it for you. This is the Labour policy: The government is releasing 1,100 more prisoners early, as part of its emergency plan to ease overcrowding in jails in England and Wales. Offenders serving more than five years are being released on licence after spending 40% of their time behind bars, a scheme that excludes those convicted of serious violence, sex crimes and terrorism. Taken from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly6y67dkpzo And here is the sentencing logic for the guy released, by the judge at the time, back in January while this was still a Tory government: "Death was caused in the course of an unlawful act which carried a high risk of death or GBH which was or ought to have been obvious to the offender. It is argued on behalf of you, Natty, that your culpability falls somewhere on the cusp of categories C and D and that an appropriate starting point should be chosen. Whilst the jury rejected Neto’s defence of self-defence, they equally rejected the Prosecution notion that the south group laid in wait for the north group in Clumber Street North/ Brunel Terrace so as to ambush two by six. It is suggested that the evidence supports a conclusion that the north group was armed and in pursuit of the south group and justifies a finding that this was “death caused in defence of self or others where not amounting to a defence” and the categorisation is in D - lower culpability. Whilst I accept the prosecution assessment in your case, Neto, because I am sure that in stabbing Gordon Gault through the arm, you had an intention to cause harm falling just short of GBH and it carried a high risk of grievous bodily harm which was or ought to have been known to you, different considerations apply to you, Natty, on the basis of your conviction" This is from the court notes: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Natty-and-Neto-Sentencing-Remarks.pdf So what Labour have done is pass a blanket rule which, I think you'd agree is meant to cover violent offenders, right? It specifically excludes them. And in this case, per the judge's ruling, the guy being released fell just under the threshold for it to be classed as GBH. So it's a technicality that has seen him released based on the original sentencing. It's not like he was handpicked by the government. Does this make sense? Just read a bit further... "Finally, I take into account the fact that, given you are a foreign national so that, on the face of it, the provisions for automatic deportation apply and there is therefore a prospect that, upon your release, you will be deported to Belgium. If this does occur, it will arguably be a greater punishment than any sentence I can impose on you." Again, you can take issue with the judge for this if you want..but not Labour.

You are aware that the people posting bad words on the internet were supporting having scores of people burned alive in a building right?