leicsmac

I also notice that Mdme Leavitt no longer wears her crucifix at press conferences with regularity. Perhaps that's because might hiss and burn when it touches her skin during such events and she doesn't want anyone noticing?

Hopefully, there may still be time to talk with places like Canada, Australia and various European nations to avoid that fate.

You're right, it won't. And what will also happen and be right will be the negative judgement of practically every near future generation for all the international consequences that result as a result of that mindset. They'll put the blood on the hands of everyone in a democratic nation who didn't do enough, and they'll be right to.

Believe me, I want to see them become a pariah state in the eyes of as much of the world as possible so long as they pursue this ridiculous "might makes right" nationalist bollocks, because that would in itself show just how deeply flawed that entire idea is. The UK needs to treat them like any other neutral-to-hostile belligerent on the list, rather than as anywhere near a friendly.

Absolute roulette bowling from Josh Tongue here. Entertaining, at least.

That's up to him and the fuzz, and how anxious they are to talk to him, I would think.

I'm sure Big Was can neither confirm nor deny his involvement Speculation appears rife on that one.

Quite so. And when he comes out from whatever rock he's hiding under, the process of deciding if he needs to be proven guilty of anything associated with this can begin.

(Darkly) interesting infographic find. Just goes to show that, right now at least, things are no worse (in terms of warfare) than they have been at other points in the last few decades.

On the topic of pointless and daft violence: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq682ggrd63o A man injured in an alleged assault at St Pancras railway station, over which police want to question far-right activist Tommy Robinson, has been discharged from hospital. Earlier this week, video footage on social media showed Robinson walking back and forth near a motionless man lying on the floor at the station. The clip did not show how the man ended up on the floor.

It's an absolute minefield, isn't it? Goodbyes knows what half to two thirds of both the terms and emoji that Gen A use really mean to them.

Wouldn't it be better to at least try to make sure this officer isn't going to act the same way in a high pressure situation with a more innocent person involved in the future? Independent oversight is important.

Appreciate the clarification and agree entirely with that.

... is the inference here that there is no problem on this matter, then?

The blokes involved deserve to see jail. The copper that engaged in a bit of kicking and stomping needs to explain to the IPC exactly why he lost his self control and how he can be sure that he might not give a more innocent party a good kicking the next time the red mist comes down.

Ah, yes. The good old days.

It seems that at this point the Canadians should just have a generic "go play with the traffic, tossers" response ready to go for practically every diplomatic interaction they have with the uncouth neighbours to the south.

1 in 32768 the odds, apparently. I mean, not quite lottery win, but still pretty far fetched from a probability POV.

At least it might delay some of the worst stuff by tying it up in court until Felon#47 is no longer a factor. Of course, that's one reason why he's trying to influence the judiciary as much as he is.

Believe me, you never get over the trauma of Mark Ealham being consistently picked as the best "all-rounder" option. (Or Nasser choosing to bowl on an absolute road with the sun beating down in a first Ashes Test at the Gabbatoir.)

And that's what the peer review process is for - that exact argument and disagreement. Of course, what it means that fact is only as good as "what empiricism and deductive logic can tell us at any one time", but if you're going down that road then all knowledge is equally subjective and flawed and we'll go along with the massive epistemological circle-jerk talking shop while the world gets worse rather than actually applying any of that knowledge to make it better. Don't get me wrong, I see the point, but at some point people - all people, as a species - are going to have to accept some simple single points of truth in order for anything to get done, and science is IMO the best place to start there, as at least the Method of empiricism and repetitive testing allows for as close to the standard of fact as we're going to get right now.

It would be nice if there was someone who could give an argument from authority here tbh. At least with scientific matters you have peer-reviewed material that can be stated pretty unequivocally as fact.

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.