Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Grebfromgrebland

Also In The News

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

All true, but he came nowhere in Iowa so I'm curious as to why suddenly the punters think he might come into the game to the degree of being second favourite as of NH next week. Why him and not a more established candidate, for instance.

 

Incidentally, the Repubs were shorter than even money before the Iowa caucuses, so I'm not sure how much that has to do with events there showing up Biden.

The Repubs have moved shorter in the betting from a combination of the impeachment which has improved Trump's ratings (as it always was going to) and Bernie getting shorter as he's considered the weakest candidate to oppose him by most pundits and layers.

 

Just watched the Pelosi tantrum, bizarre behaviour and not fitting of her office, didn't even do it with any authority either, looked like a pissed up pensioner who had just lost at bingo.

 

Sadly, can see Trump doing that back with the impeachment papers when he's acquitted.

Edited by MattP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

The Repubs have moved shorter in the betting from a combination of the impeachment which has improved Trump's ratings (as it always was going to) and Bernie getting shorter as he's considered the weakest candidate to oppose him by most pundits and layers.

 

Just watched the Pelosi tantrum, bizarre behaviour and not fitting of her office, didn't even do it with any authority either, looked like a pissed up pensioner who had just lost at bingo.

 

Sadly, can see Trump doing that back with the impeachment papers when he's acquitted.

Sorry man, I'm not getting there. Trump's approval ratings are currently in the low 40's (which barring a little variance) is where they have been for pretty much a year now, including the time of the impeachment - and if you check RealClearPolitics hypothetical match ups then Sanders is better than Warren or Buttigieg v Trump in a general election (though, interestingly, not as good as Bloomberg and neither of them as good as Biden). If the reasoning you give there is what the punters are placing their bets on then it appears to be erroneous information, but then such trends have been followed before. Still leaves me thinking exactly why Bloomberg and not anyone else when he's not made any kind of waves electorally.

 

I don't agree with what Pelosi did myself but for a different reason - it's an empty gesture whose effort would be better spent on crafting policy that can actually hamstring Trump and run him into the ground this November - like appealing economically to poor white communities who think they've been left behind and who bought into Trumps con artist rhetoric that he actually cares about them as a result. Or perhaps emphasising that he gave a very special civilian award to an avowed racist, homophobe and misogynist last night and that's the kind of company that supports him in large numbers. Or by actually picking a side on gun control - either going for it as much as they can and ignoring the NRA or going in the complete opposite direction and encouraging vulnerable people to arm themselves - flipflopping on the matter doesn't help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Sorry man, I'm not getting there. Trump's approval ratings are currently in the low 40's (which barring a little variance) is where they have been for pretty much a year now, including the time of the impeachment - and if you check RealClearPolitics hypothetical match ups then Sanders is better than Warren or Buttigieg v Trump in a general election (though, interestingly, not as good as Bloomberg and neither of them as good as Biden). If the reasoning you give there is what the punters are placing their bets on then it appears to be erroneous information, but then such trends have been followed before. Still leaves me thinking exactly why Bloomberg and not anyone else when he's not made any kind of waves electorally.

 

I don't agree with what Pelosi did myself but for a different reason - it's an empty gesture whose effort would be better spent on crafting policy that can actually hamstring Trump and run him into the ground this November - like appealing economically to poor white communities who think they've been left behind and who bought into Trumps con artist rhetoric that he actually cares about them as a result.

I think a lot of the white poor communities are prepared to take a chance with a con artist who might do something from the Republicans rather than just keep on voting for con artists from the Democrats.

 

Also if you are going to ruled by someone who doesn't give a shit about you may as make it the one that isn't going to call you deplorable/racist and keep trying to ram down your throat you still have privilege - again a good comparison with over here on that.

 

Realistically it's not going to be Buttigieg or Warren so the bookmakers are right to draw the Republicans in giving Sanders seems to be edging Biden.

 

Polling is completely irrelevant at this stage as it's not in depth state by state and we saw the shambles last time of that polling in the rust belt states, bizarre 6-8 pt leads for Clinton in places like Penn everyone aside from the media seemed to know was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump acquitted in the Senate (of the first article anyway, assume the subsequent votes will be the same) . Surely this will play into his hands in November now. Mueller and now this will be spun something silly.

 

This lot give FIFA a run for their money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, MattP said:

I think a lot of the white poor communities are prepared to take a chance with a con artist who might do something from the Republicans rather than just keep on voting for con artists from the Democrats.

 

Also if you are going to ruled by someone who doesn't give a shit about you may as make it the one that isn't going to call you deplorable/racist and keep trying to ram down your throat you still have privilege - again a good comparison with over here on that.

 

Realistically it's not going to be Buttigieg or Warren so the bookmakers are right to draw the Republicans in giving Sanders seems to be edging Biden.

 

Polling is completely irrelevant at this stage as it's not in depth state by state and we saw the shambles last time of that polling in the rust belt states, bizarre 6-8 pt leads for Clinton in places like Penn everyone aside from the media seemed to know was wrong.

I agree that there needs to be more of substance done to help poor white communities rather than just writing them off and the Dems need to catch up there, hence the original post. Of course, that's not disregarding the fact that prejudice does exist there and elsewhere otherwise folks like Limbaugh would not be receiving awards like they did last night - interested in what you make of that btw.

 

My point on this one is that the polling doesn't seem to match the bookies odds, which is strange - they normally do correlate, they did in 2016 even though both of them turned out to be wrong. And I've still heard no good reason why Bloomberg is surging at the bookies as opposed to anyone else when he's done naff all electorally.

 

That all being said, it is pretty foolhardy to make dedicated predictions about how it will all play out this far ahead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

Acquitted on  both. We all knew thay was happening. 

 

Now onto his relection win. Sigh

Glad the sham has now finished and the Democrats have been shown to be just who they really are at present, The SOTU especially proving this with their utter lack of respect.

 

I hope he does get another term in office 👍

 

Think bernie "free everything" sanders would be the nominee but will undoubtedly get screwed over again so creepy joe gets it. Bootyjudge, warren, yanggang, boomerberg won't get a sniff. Gabbard would of been a good contender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Australia, the government instituted a "Robodebt" attack on welfare recipients that was illegal and led to numerous suicides not to mention incredible hardship.

They know it was illegal, they knew it was killing people and they didnt care.

 

https://www.notmydebt.com.au/the-issue

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/feb/06/government-warned-robodebt-scheme-unlawful-but-wont-say-when

Edited by ozleicester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51397956

 

How to ruin a promising political career. Just why. :huh:

The bigger question is why he only appears to be getting a slap on the wrist instead of being hauled in front of a magistrate on grooming charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

Can you not groom 16 year olds? Have to admit it's not my area of expertise

As far as I'm aware him trying to chat up a 16 year old is legal. It's just shady as balls and him constantly messaging the lad when he's told him not to try anything probably sneaks into harassment grounds I think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51397956

 

How to ruin a promising political career. Just why. :huh:

 

Maybe feelings of confusion as he'd only come out as gay in recent years - and had maybe only accepted it himself at that late stage (he'd been married to a woman)?

Or more stress than he could handle? I have a mate who did something similarly stupid (involving women, not a 16-year-old boy) and he thought it was a cry for help as he'd taken on a work position he felt he couldn't handle.

 

Whatever, this bloke obviously had to go, given the abuse of his position of authority & the youth of the lad.

 

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

The bigger question is why he only appears to be getting a slap on the wrist instead of being hauled in front of a magistrate on grooming charges.

 

All he seems to have done is repeatedly contact the lad, complimenting him about his appearance etc.

I say "all" but that's more than enough for him to have to resign, but would it have been enough to be deemed "grooming" by a court if he never met the lad and didn't say anything explicitly sexual?

 

I'm also unsure how the law works with abuse of authority (particularly under Scottish, not English & Welsh law).

The lad would have been above the age of consent, but if it had been, say, a teacher in England, and anything more had happened, there'd have been a legal case....not sure about a senior politician in Scotland.... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Thanks for the advice guys, if anyone needs me you can find me hanging around the bushes of your local 6th form being careful not to use overtly sexual phrases.

More free advice, just wear something camouflaging and you'll be fine I'm sure. :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Thanks for the advice guys, if anyone needs me you can find me hanging around the bushes of your local 6th form being careful not to use overtly sexual phrases.

Don't copy that Newcastle fan.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Innovindil said:

More free advice, just wear something camouflaging and you'll be fine I'm sure. :ph34r:

I have a beige trenchcoat, that should do.  I tend to get very hot wearing large coats though so I'll probably have to do away with some of the layers underneath. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Thanks for the advice guys, if anyone needs me you can find me hanging around the bushes of your local 6th form being careful not to use overtly sexual phrases.

 

So long as you're not hanging around any llama farms.... :ph34r:

 

For the record, I'm not for a minute suggesting he's done nothing wrong. He clearly has. I was just wondering aloud why it was deemed a moral/professional offence but not a legal issue.....and maybe it will be?

Or maybe the boy and his family would prefer him not to go through the trauma of high-profile court case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

So long as you're not hanging around any llama farms.... :ph34r:

 

For the record, I'm not for a minute suggesting he's done nothing wrong. He clearly has. I was just wondering aloud why it was deemed a moral/professional offence but not a legal issue.....and maybe it will be?

Or maybe the boy and his family would prefer him not to go through the trauma of high-profile court case?

I'm in the same boat, can't work out for the life of me how this isn't a criminal offence of some description.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/stalking-and-harassment

 

Stalking

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 created two new offences of stalking by inserting new sections 2A and 4A into the PHA 1997. The new offences which came into force on 25 November 2012, are not retrospective, and provide further options for prosecutors to consider when selecting charges. The Home Office issued guidelines in relation to the stalking offences.

Whilst there is no strict legal definition of 'stalking', section 2A (3) of the PHA 1997 sets out examples of acts or omissions which, in particular circumstances, are ones associated with stalking. For example, following a person, watching or spying on them or forcing contact with the victim through any means, including social media.

The effect of such behaviour is to curtail a victim's freedom, leaving them feeling that they constantly have to be careful. In many cases, the conduct might appear innocent ( if it were to be taken in isolation), but when carried out repeatedly so as to amount to a course of conduct, it may then cause significant alarm, harassment or distress to the victim.

Prosecutors should note that the examples given in section 2A (3) is not an exhaustive list but an indication of the types of behaviour that may be displayed in a stalking offence.

Prosecutors should note that stalking and harassment of another or others can include a range of offences such as those under: the Protection from Harassment Act 1997; the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; the Sexual Offences Act 2003; and the Malicious Communications Act 1988. It is important when considering this type of offending to look at all relevant legislation when formulating charges. 

 

Harassment

In this legal guidance, the term harassment is used to cover the 'causing alarm or distress' offences under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 as amended (PHA), and 'putting people in fear of violence' offences under section 4 of the PHA. The term can also include harassment by two or more defendants against an individual or harassment against more than one victim.

Although harassment is not specifically defined in section 7(2) of the PHA, it can include repeated attempts to impose unwanted communications and contact upon a victim in a manner that could be expected to cause distress or fear in any reasonable person.

The definition of harassment was considered in Plavelil v Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] EWHC 736 (Admin), in which it was held that the repeated making of false and malicious assertions against a doctor in connection with an investigation by the GMC could amount to a course of harassment. The Court of Appeal rejected the argument that malicious allegations could not be oppressive if they could easily be rebutted.

A prosecution under section 2 or 4 requires proof of harassment. In addition, there must be evidence to prove the conduct was targeted at an individual, was calculated to alarm or cause him/her distress, and was oppressive and unreasonable.

Closely connected groups may also be subjected to 'collective' harassment. The primary intention of this type of harassment is not generally directed at an individual but rather at members of a group. This could include: members of the same family; residents of a particular neighbourhood; groups of a specific identity including ethnicity or sexuality, for example, the racial harassment of the users of a specific ethnic community centre; harassment of a group of disabled people; harassment of gay clubs; or of those engaged in a specific trade or profession.

Harassment of an individual can also occur when a person is harassing others connected with the individual, knowing that this behaviour will affect their victim as well as the other people that the person appears to be targeting their actions towards. This is known as 'stalking by proxy'. Family members, friends and employees of the victim may be subjected to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I'm in the same boat, can't work out for the life of me how this isn't a criminal offence of some description.

It probably is if they wanted to push it. But like Alf said would the parents really want the lad to go through all that. The guy has lost a promising career in a well paid field and probably his own self respect in the process. Not sure any harassment/stalking charge could do much worse to him than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...