leicsmac

And likewise from Google (so treat this with a heavy pinch of salt, too): A "good character" defense in a criminal case can be used to argue that the defendant is unlikely to have committed the crime they are accused of, or that they are a truthful individual. This defense often involves presenting evidence of the defendant's positive reputation and lack of prior criminal convictions, or evidence that the alleged offense is out of character for them. Key aspects of a good character defense: Establishing Good Character: A defendant is generally considered to have good character if they have no previous convictions or cautions. However, even with prior convictions, a defendant can still argue for "effective good character" if the convictions are old, minor, or irrelevant to the current charge. Types of Evidence: Good character evidence can be used to demonstrate both the defendant's likelihood of committing the offense (propensity) and their truthfulness (credibility). How it Works: Evidence of good character is presented to the court, and the judge will provide directions to the jury (if applicable) on how to consider this evidence. Role of Defence Counsel: Defence counsel has a responsibility to ensure that the judge is aware of the defendant's good character and to ensure that the court is properly directed on the issue. Examples: A defendant with no prior convictions, or one with old or minor convictions, may argue that they are unlikely to have committed the current offense or that they are more likely to be telling the truth. In essence, a good character defense aims to show that the defendant is not the type of person who would commit the crime and/or that they are credible and trustworthy. Courtesy of defence-barrister.co.uk Little bit of this, little bit of that, it would seem.

I rather think that the legal points referenced in the above post might be pertinent too, IMO.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mlzz1gy39o The Trump administration has announced a plan to scrap a landmark finding that greenhouse gases are harmful to the environment, severely curbing the federal government's ability to combat climate change. Known as the "Endangerment Finding", the 2009 order from then-President Barack Obama allowed the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create rules to limit pollution by setting emissions standards. The US is a major contributor to global climate change, and ranks second only to China which emits more planet-warming gases like carbon dioxide – and the US still emits more per person. Experts have warned that the move could have a devastating impact on the environment. President Donald Trump has long argued that climate regulations stifle US economic growth, and on his first day back in office in January ordered that the EPA submit recommendations "on the legality and continuing applicability" of the Endangerment Finding. The Endangerment Finding stemmed from a 2007 Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" - meaning that the EPA has the authority and responsibility to regulate them under the US Clean Air Act. In 2009, the EPA made an official decision, the Endangerment Finding, which found that greenhouse gas emissions from sources such as cars, power plants and factories cause climate change and could pose a public health risk. The decision forms the core of the federal government's authority to impose limits on carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases. In a statement, the EPA said that, if finalised, the move will save Americans $54bn (£40bn) in costs annually through the repeal of greenhouse gas standards, including an electric vehicle mandate passed by the Biden administration. Speaking in an episode of the conservative "Ruthless" podcast released on Tuesday, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin said the move was "basically driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion". Zeldin said that emissions standards were a "distraction" and that the policy change was "an economic issue". "Repealing it will be the largest deregulatory action in the history of America," he said. In a previous statement on reconsidering the findings in March, Zeldin said that "the Trump Administration will not sacrifice national prosperity, energy security, and the freedom of our people for an agenda that throttles our industries, our mobility, and our consumer choice while benefiting adversaries overseas." The new draft rule from the EPA will now go undergo a public comment period before being subject to an interagency review. If it is successful, the rule will immediately revoke rules governing tailpipe emissions from vehicles. According to the EPA statement, the revocation of those standards will begin with those set in 2010 for light-duty vehicles, as well as those set in 2011 for medium and heavy-duty vehicles and engines. The EPA's move is likely to face legal challenges, and some experts have questioned whether the administration's decision will make it through the courts at all. But Richard Revesz, the former administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Biden administration and a law professor at New York University, told the Washington Post that the announcement will still have an impact on US climate change policies until a final decision is made in the court system. "If the endangerment finding fell, it would call into question essentially all or almost all of EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases," he said. Also among those to condemn the announcement was California Governor Gavin Newsom, who in a joint statement with Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers accused the Trump administration of "reckless abandonment of science and the law." "Americans deserve to know the truth from the federal government about the climate crisis," the statement said. "No amount of buying research of firing scientists will change the facts: greenhouse gas pollution causes climate change and endangers our health and welfare - period," it added. ..... what on Earth have we come to when the head of the organisation designed to protect the environment in the most powerful and influential nation on Earth clearly views the environment with such contempt? One day, he and his will answer for the damage they have done. Or, if he's fortunate enough to expire before the reckoning, history will remember him and his.

Technical issue within the ATC system results in a lot of delays: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cewd49znze4t

I'm presuming you weren't around during the entirety of the 90s and early 2000s?

The same being the case with any religious influence on secular societal laws.

Quite so. It's also (darkly) fascinating how because the magnitude scale is logarithmic and these things are so random, almost half of the combined energy ("strength") of all the thousands and thousands of earthquakes in the last 130-odd years was released in just the top three of all of them - Chile 1960, Alaska 1964, and Indian Ocean 2004.

Ah, the high standards of LM journalism.

Thankfully, it seems like the areas the quake was closest to are reasonably uninhabited and the warning systems we have today worked well enough to give people further away time to prepare. (8.8 is joint 6th on the all time list of strongest recorded earthquakes, if anyone wants to know. The 2004 quake is 3rd in that list and was around four times as strong as this one.)

... and that's because the people in charge appear to have the matter as well in hand as could be expected and hopefully there won't be much loss of life and property. The same, sadly, cant be said of a lot of other matters.

Tsunami warnings across pretty much all of the northern Pacific after an 8.8 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Russia. That's a biggie.

Fair to say

You know it and I know it. Sadly that doesn't seem to stop what appears to be a large amount of people with a large amount of inhumanity and penchant for libellous commentary.

People who seem to deliberately devalue human life by criticising the RNLI for doing their jobs; namely seeking to save any human life in distress at sea.

Agreed, pretty much the same as any other Internet regs that aren't China level draconian in their implementation. That being said, the outrage comes tinged with hypocrisy once again, but I'll not elaborate on that here for risk of derailing the current topic.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgery3eeqzxo Nigel Farage has urged Technology Secretary Peter Kyle to "do the right thing and apologise" after he suggested that by opposing the government's online safety law, the Reform UK leader was on the side of sex offenders like Jimmy Savile. Reform has said it would scrap the new law, arguing it does not protect children and suppresses free speech. Kyle told Sky News: "Make no mistake if people like Jimmy Savile were alive today he would be perpetrating his crimes online - and Nigel Farage is on their side." Farage called the minister's comments "disgusting," while his Reform colleague Zia Yusuf said the claim was "one of the most appalling things I've seen in my political life". Spicy.

One state at a time would need massive state line enforcement to stop the black market between states and guns crossing state lines. Federally and all at once would be better in that regard, but would still be wildly impractical given just how many firearms there are and how many people appear willing to die (and kill) to keep them. There would be a lot of blood on the floor before it was all over. More blood than the overall total of what is happening now over a period of time? Difficult to say. It's a hugely messy problem which is probably why both the executive and legislative in the US have backed away from any real action on the matter for a long time now.

I can see that. In all seriousness though, the Japanese have already experienced one kurai tanima, they should know better to avoid another.

There's that, too.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2k29233jeo Like Germany, you would think that Japan would know all too well where that particular road ends.

If the past couple of decades haven't taught the UK that there are no "good guys" in the big international players and to play foreign policy accordingly by adopting an approach that relies mostly on peacekeeping and neutrality, then I don't know what will.

Current evidence certainly backs this up, yes. An additional complication is at least some of those involved being perfectly willing to die, kill and otherwise treat life as cheap because they buy into the as yet unsubstantiated idea that this life isn't all that a human has. Wouldn't be the first fallacy (at the present time) that has resulted in a large amount of death and suffering but it is one of the oldest and certainly one of the most meaningful in that rather dark subject.

Joey Barton being his usual rational self at the news, then.

24 wickets and around 1400 runs in 5 days would probably result in questions about the pitch if it were elsewhere. So it goes, still ahead in the series, carry the batting form onto the Oval.

Looks like it may well be, but if you can't create more chances than that in tens of overs you probably don't deserve to win anyway.