If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
Not many burglars would risk breaking into an occupied house in the middle of the night unarmed.
Tougher sentences don't do any good except keep them off the streets for a bit longer. Most of these people have been in and out of jail all their lives.
Therefore in principle I'm with the 61%, though the myriad of grey areas means the law has to be flexible. In principle though if you break into someone's house you deserve all you get including a frightened homeowner hitting you over the head with a hammer. If that principle were enshrined in law it might be a good deterrent though might also lead burglars to tool up with more weapons. You find you get more right wing on this when you have kids.
It depends on the circumstance but if say an unarmed teenager broke into your house to steal a TV if the law followed this poll you would be within your legal rights to kill him
Thangam has been very outspoken about Jeremy Corbyn. I think some of her comments dating back to 2015 were wrong. E.g., blaming Jeremy Corbyn for not knowing she had breast cancer in a an article in the Guardian.
I am not a Corbynista, but (after what she written and said), I am not surprised that Thangam is in a lot of trouble with her CLP.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
Not many burglars would risk breaking into an occupied house in the middle of the night unarmed.
Tougher sentences don't do any good except keep them off the streets for a bit longer. Most of these people have been in and out of jail all their lives.
Therefore in principle I'm with the 61%, though the myriad of grey areas means the law has to be flexible. In principle though if you break into someone's house you deserve all you get including a frightened homeowner hitting you over the head with a hammer. If that principle were enshrined in law it might be a good deterrent though might also lead burglars to tool up with more weapons. You find you get more right wing on this when you have kids.
The law is that you can use reasonable force. The law also recognises that, in the heat of the moment, you might not think about whether it is reasonable to hit the intruder over the head with a hammer and therefore might go beyond reasonable. However, the law does not protect you if you act in ways that are clearly unreasonable such as shooting burglars in the back when they are no longer in your house and are running away.
At the moment we don't know very much about the latest case so it is impossible to tell whether the home owner's actions were reasonable. But the law is pretty much as you say it should be.
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
It also means that burglars are more routinely armed with guns and effectively if the burglary goes wrong it becomes a contest between whether the burglars or the homeowner are the better shot. The homeowner rarely comes out better when outnumbered by young fit experienced burglars. It is also common that burglars shoot people with their own guns. South Africa is perhaps an even better example of this phenomenon than the US.
If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
Except the Castle Law element of these laws allows you to use deadly force in defence of your property when you are within your home.
If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
Apparently, in Texas you can shoot dead an intruder without penalty if he was either armed or had a criminal record, otherwise you get a nominal fine.
If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
Apparently, in Texas you can shoot dead an intruder without penalty if he was either armed or had a criminal record, otherwise you get a nominal fine.
You mean, you get fined if you don't shoot him dead?
If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
Apparently, in Texas you can shoot dead an intruder without penalty if he was either armed or had a criminal record, otherwise you get a nominal fine.
You mean, you get fined if you don't shoot him dead?
To cover the cost of the trial that your squeamishness caused, presumably?
Just text CLTC25 and the amount you want to donate to 70070. So, for example, if you want to donate £10 you would send 'CLTC25 £10'. It's as easy as that.
If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
Except the Castle Law element of these laws allows you to use deadly force in defence of your property when you are within your home.
Castle Laws depend on the state, in Massachusetts for example you still have to have reasonable belief of death or grievous bodily harm from someone you have killed even if they were an intruder into your own residence
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
Not many burglars would risk breaking into an occupied house in the middle of the night unarmed.
Tougher sentences don't do any good except keep them off the streets for a bit longer. Most of these people have been in and out of jail all their lives.
Therefore in principle I'm with the 61%, though the myriad of grey areas means the law has to be flexible. In principle though if you break into someone's house you deserve all you get including a frightened homeowner hitting you over the head with a hammer. If that principle were enshrined in law it might be a good deterrent though might also lead burglars to tool up with more weapons. You find you get more right wing on this when you have kids.
Most burglars who operate at night expect to be disturbed and hence as you say are prepared.
As to reasonable force, I'm not sure how someone might mitigate their swing with any particular implement in the heat of the moment.
If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
Except the Castle Law element of these laws allows you to use deadly force in defence of your property when you are within your home.
Castle Laws depend on the state, in Massachusetts for example you still have to have reasonable belief of death or grievous bodily harm from someone you have killed even if they were an intruder into your own residence
If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
Apparently, in Texas you can shoot dead an intruder without penalty if he was either armed or had a criminal record, otherwise you get a nominal fine.
You mean, you get fined if you don't shoot him dead?
You spot an intruder in your home, do a quick criminal records check, see that he's on his third strike for burglary, then shoot him dead?
If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
Apparently, in Texas you can shoot dead an intruder without penalty if he was either armed or had a criminal record, otherwise you get a nominal fine.
You mean, you get fined if you don't shoot him dead?
You spot an intruder in your home, do a quick criminal records check, see that he's on his third strike for burglary, then shoot him dead?
Apparently, in Texas you can shoot dead an intruder without penalty if he was either armed or had a criminal record, otherwise you get a nominal fine.
Interesting general legal point here. Why should it affect your sentence if something outside your knowledge or control is or is not true (such as whether the intruder has a criminal record - I presume the householder isn't expect to ask)?
Personally I think that killing in self-defence does require some evidence of serious personal threat beyond mere intrusion. Otherwise this is a mitigating circumstance, but not a sufficient reason. Otherwise you end up with cases like the British tourist a few years ago who was shot for calling on a house to ask the way (IIRC the door was open so he peered in).
If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
Except the Castle Law element of these laws allows you to use deadly force in defence of your property when you are within your home.
Castle Laws depend on the state, in Massachusetts for example you still have to have reasonable belief of death or grievous bodily harm from someone you have killed even if they were an intruder into your own residence
Nasty weapon, sharpened screwdriver!
Reminds me of a friend who always carried in the back of his car a baseball and a baseball glove - made it much easier to justify the baseball bat if he ever got stopped.
And the reason for that? As I said Corbyn largely squeezed the left of centre anti Tory vote behind him, many who voted Green or LD or even UKIP or SNP in 2015 voted Labour in 2017.
There was almost no net Tory to Labour movement from 2015 to 2017 and helped too by UKIP voters moving to the Tories May still won the second highest number of Tory seats in 2017 for 25 years
My pet theory is that people were more scared of a large Tory majority than of giving succour to Corbyn, not Labour, Corbyn specifically. But I don't know, no more than either of you do, although I'm prepared to lay that on the line, unlike either of you.
I agree with that, Mr Cide., especially since the Tory campaign was designed to turn Mrs may into a virtual dictator.
On the other hand, Mr HYUFD, I don`t think Corbyn did any squeezing. This was done for him by those who were advocating a "Progressive Alliance" - the Green Party and some short-sighted Lib Dems. I don`t think this will be repeated.
If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
Except the Castle Law element of these laws allows you to use deadly force in defence of your property when you are within your home.
Castle Laws depend on the state, in Massachusetts for example you still have to have reasonable belief of death or grievous bodily harm from someone you have killed even if they were an intruder into your own residence
Nasty weapon, sharpened screwdriver!
People get killed in prison with a sharpened chicken bone....
If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
Except the Castle Law element of these laws allows you to use deadly force in defence of your property when you are within your home.
Castle Laws depend on the state, in Massachusetts for example you still have to have reasonable belief of death or grievous bodily harm from someone you have killed even if they were an intruder into your own residence
Nasty weapon, sharpened screwdriver!
Reminds me of a friend who always carried in the back of his car a baseball and a baseball glove - made it much easier to justify the baseball bat if he ever got stopped.
If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
Except the Castle Law element of these laws allows you to use deadly force in defence of your property when you are within your home.
Castle Laws depend on the state, in Massachusetts for example you still have to have reasonable belief of death or grievous bodily harm from someone you have killed even if they were an intruder into your own residence
I am sure you can find exceptions to everything, but how Castle Laws are interpreted in real life, particularly in the South, is that you can pretty much kill people for entering your home uninvited, because no-one can really disprove your assertion that, in the heat of the moment, you had a reasonable belief of imminent danger.
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
It also means that burglars are more routinely armed with guns and effectively if the burglary goes wrong it becomes a contest between whether the burglars or the homeowner are the better shot. The homeowner rarely comes out better when outnumbered by young fit experienced burglars. It is also common that burglars shoot people with their own guns. South Africa is perhaps an even better example of this phenomenon than the US.
When I lived in Atlanta, Georgia law permitted shooting of intruders as self defence automatically.
There were quite a few fatal shootings by parents of their own children sneaking in after surreptitious nights out, as well as the usual fatal shootings by burgulars whose aim was to steal guns.
I believe that non gun-owning households are statistically safer.
If I was in fear for the lives of myself and my family then I would see use of extreme force to defend them justified.
There already is the defence of self defence if your life is threatened by an intruder but this poll result suggests the average voter would go further and legalise extreme force against a burglar even if your life was not in immediate danger and the burglar was unarmed, while I support tougher sentences for burglars and quicker police response times to burglaries I would not go that far personally
I would.
Most US states have some version of it - the Stand-Your-Ground laws. See map:
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
Except the Castle Law element of these laws allows you to use deadly force in defence of your property when you are within your home.
Castle Laws depend on the state, in Massachusetts for example you still have to have reasonable belief of death or grievous bodily harm from someone you have killed even if they were an intruder into your own residence
Nasty weapon, sharpened screwdriver!
People get killed in prison with a sharpened chicken bone....
That they splinter into sharp objects is, IIRC, why one doesn’t give chicken carcases to dogs.
Mind, by the time my wife’s boiled one down for soup there’s not a lot left but bone anyway. And we haven’t got a dog!
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
It also means that burglars are more routinely armed with guns and effectively if the burglary goes wrong it becomes a contest between whether the burglars or the homeowner are the better shot. The homeowner rarely comes out better when outnumbered by young fit experienced burglars. It is also common that burglars shoot people with their own guns. South Africa is perhaps an even better example of this phenomenon than the US.
There were quite a few fatal shootings by parents of their own children sneaking in after surreptitious nights out,
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
It also means that burglars are more routinely armed with guns and effectively if the burglary goes wrong it becomes a contest between whether the burglars or the homeowner are the better shot. The homeowner rarely comes out better when outnumbered by young fit experienced burglars. It is also common that burglars shoot people with their own guns. South Africa is perhaps an even better example of this phenomenon than the US.
When I lived in Atlanta, Georgia law permitted shooting of intruders as self defence automatically.
There were quite a few fatal shootings by parents of their own children sneaking in after surreptitious nights out, as well as the usual fatal shootings by burgulars whose aim was to steal guns.
I believe that non gun-owning households are statistically safer.
That reminds me of a question on Quora asking which was better to own for home defence, a dog or a gun. The answer given was a dog as it provides one thing a gun can't. Threat assessment, as pooch will know the difference between someone breaking in and your drunken teenage kids trying to sneak in without waking you.
Those laws only generally apply if there is a threat of serious danger to your life or serious bodily harm so are little different to the UK self defence laws
It also means that burglars are more routinely armed with guns and effectively if the burglary goes wrong it becomes a contest between whether the burglars or the homeowner are the better shot. The homeowner rarely comes out better when outnumbered by young fit experienced burglars. It is also common that burglars shoot people with their own guns. South Africa is perhaps an even better example of this phenomenon than the US.
There were quite a few fatal shootings by parents of their own children sneaking in after surreptitious nights out,
She said: "It's worth remembering that although we managed to get to 45 per cent, we did not get there because of Alex Salmond.
"In fact, in many ways, during the actual Yes campaign it was in spite of Alex Salmond. Because it was just used as a weapon, constantly – 'independence is all about the SNP and Alex Salmond'.
Just begun The Last Wish. Interesting to read it after playing The Witcher 3, and already having some knowledge of the world/idea of certain characters.
F1: mildly peeved Ricciardo was fastest. He was around 13 to top first practice. Not that I considered that bet and decided against making it, like a fool...
F1: Ricciardo is 10 (with boost) on Ladbrokes to top practice 2 (fifth the odds top 3). In the last two years, 2/3 of the top 3 from FP1 have also been top 3 in FP2.
F1: Ricciardo is 10 (with boost) on Ladbrokes to top practice 2 (fifth the odds top 3). In the last two years, 2/3 of the top 3 from FP1 have also been top 3 in FP2.
Remember that LH abandoned his fastest lap in P1 after a lockup, and changed to a long run. Also that P1 is in the day and P2 in the night. No bet for me (not that I have a working Ladbrokes account at the moment anyway).
The damage is done by asphyxia during the gap to treatment, which is long if, as it seems here, contact was via skin rather than inhalation.
That’s a very useful analysis, which gives a clearer understanding of the biological and medical issues involved - so will be completely ignored by the Twittermobs spouting their usual ignorance, and probably most of the regular media too.
The damage is done by asphyxia during the gap to treatment, which is long if, as it seems here, contact was via skin rather than inhalation.
Thanks for that. Interesting article. Atropine has indeed been on emergency trolleys and trays for many years. Am reminded of the days I spent, once upon a time, checking the refilled trays when they’d been sent back to pharmacy. And if ‘all’ you’ve got to do is keep them breathing that’s a pretty standard, if sometimes tedious, process.
The damage is done by asphyxia during the gap to treatment, which is long if, as it seems here, contact was via skin rather than inhalation.
That’s a very useful analysis, which gives a clearer understanding of the biological and medical issues involved - so will be completely ignored by the Twittermobs spouting their usual ignorance, and probably most of the regular media too.
It seems as if the couple were quite well initially in the pub, as Mr Skripal ordered two glasses of wine at the bar, took them to the table, then went to the lavatory. When he returned, he appeared unwell, then both him and his daughter left their drinks and went to get some air on the nearby bench. The alarm was raised shortly afterwards, so the untreated exposure time was probably hours.
The damage is done by asphyxia during the gap to treatment, which is long if, as it seems here, contact was via skin rather than inhalation.
That’s a very useful analysis, which gives a clearer understanding of the biological and medical issues involved - so will be completely ignored by the Twittermobs spouting their usual ignorance, and probably most of the regular media too.
Thing is, though, anything that Dan knows, so presumably does Russia.
So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?
The damage is done by asphyxia during the gap to treatment, which is long if, as it seems here, contact was via skin rather than inhalation.
That’s a very useful analysis, which gives a clearer understanding of the biological and medical issues involved - so will be completely ignored by the Twittermobs spouting their usual ignorance, and probably most of the regular media too.
It seems as if the couple were quite well initially in the pub, as Mr Skripal ordered two glasses of wine at the bar, took them to the table, then went to the lavatory. When he returned, he appeared unwell, then both him and his daughter left their drinks and went to get some air on the nearby bench. The alarm was raised shortly afterwards, so the untreated exposure time was probably hours.
According to what my sources say
Interesting...
I find the timeline fascinating, that the two people could be exposed several hours previously yet fall seriously ill within minutes of each other. I’m sure we’ll get (most of) the details eventually.
I'll put this here to avoid dragging the new one off topic I had to go earlier.
@ydoethur ________________________________ I accept your statement that if my premise is correct you consider what is happening to be wrong. In fact, from your posting history and our previous discussions I would have expected nothing less from you. But do you not think as matters stand this looks very bad? __________________________________
Outside of this motion which has come and gone nothing else should happen in a time frame which would see it strongly linked back to her attendance of the protest. If she does get deselected or decides to step down before the next election that would probably be a couple of years away if not more. Whilst this could get brought up if it did happen I don't think the argument would be strong enough that it was linked back to this, although I may be wrong on that.
Comments
More like it for Woody. But can he make up 77 on the SNP out of the 200 Tory votes? The heart says yes, the head says "not sure".
I am not a Corbynista, but (after what she written and said), I am not surprised that Thangam is in a lot of trouble with her CLP.
At the moment we don't know very much about the latest case so it is impossible to tell whether the home owner's actions were reasonable. But the law is pretty much as you say it should be.
https://www.begambleaware.org/
Great round for Rixson, 84 Tory transfers to the Lib Dems.
In my defence I did say at the time 'I can’t quite believe I placed this bet'
Just text CLTC25 and the amount you want to donate to 70070. So, for example, if you want to donate £10 you would send 'CLTC25 £10'. It's as easy as that.
As to reasonable force, I'm not sure how someone might mitigate their swing with any particular implement in the heat of the moment.
Could be...
Personally I think that killing in self-defence does require some evidence of serious personal threat beyond mere intrusion. Otherwise this is a mitigating circumstance, but not a sufficient reason. Otherwise you end up with cases like the British tourist a few years ago who was shot for calling on a house to ask the way (IIRC the door was open so he peered in).
https://twitter.com/HighlandCouncil/status/982237019454693376
Sounds like my sort of candidate!
He went on to become a copper.
On the other hand, Mr HYUFD, I don`t think Corbyn did any squeezing. This was done for him by those who were advocating a "Progressive Alliance" - the Green Party and some short-sighted Lib Dems. I don`t think this will be repeated.
Trump didn't get Corbyn's memo it seems.
There were quite a few fatal shootings by parents of their own children sneaking in after surreptitious nights out, as well as the usual fatal shootings by burgulars whose aim was to steal guns.
I believe that non gun-owning households are statistically safer.
https://twitter.com/robmcd85/status/982235968106250240
Mind, by the time my wife’s boiled one down for soup there’s not a lot left but bone anyway.
And we haven’t got a dog!
I know I’ve tipped him as Corbyn’s successor.
The answer given was a dog as it provides one thing a gun can't.
Threat assessment, as pooch will know the difference between someone breaking in and your drunken teenage kids trying to sneak in without waking you.
As for next Labour leader I thought you'd tipped everyone with a pulse and a brain cell for that, and added Diane Abbott as well.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-father-fatally-shoots-son-he-mistook-intruder-police-n495111
The NRA would describe it as the price of freedom.
https://twitter.com/telepolitics/status/982243902160715776?s=21
They should have followed the playbook MI6 did with David Kelly.
However, are Mr S and his daughter not foreign nationals? If so, who is paying for their care?
Would be funny if the Russian state had to pay for Ms Skripal's care...
https://www.ncpolitics.uk/2018/04/we-did-a-poll-heres-why-and-what-we-found.html/2/
https://twitter.com/heraldscotland/status/982199143668989952?s=21
She said: "It's worth remembering that although we managed to get to 45 per cent, we did not get there because of Alex Salmond.
"In fact, in many ways, during the actual Yes campaign it was in spite of Alex Salmond. Because it was just used as a weapon, constantly – 'independence is all about the SNP and Alex Salmond'.
https://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/uk-visitors/visiting-england/Pages/visitors-from-outside-the-eea.aspx
However, I wonder if it will pay out on this.
Just begun The Last Wish. Interesting to read it after playing The Witcher 3, and already having some knowledge of the world/idea of certain characters.
F1: mildly peeved Ricciardo was fastest. He was around 13 to top first practice. Not that I considered that bet and decided against making it, like a fool...
https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/982238211278647301?s=19
The damage is done by asphyxia during the gap to treatment, which is long if, as it seems here, contact was via skin rather than inhalation.
And Mercedes/Ferrari seem to sandbag more than Red Bull.
And if ‘all’ you’ve got to do is keep them breathing that’s a pretty standard, if sometimes tedious, process.
It seems as if the couple were quite well initially in the pub, as Mr Skripal ordered two glasses of wine at the bar, took them to the table, then went to the lavatory. When he returned, he appeared unwell, then both him and his daughter left their drinks and went to get some air on the nearby bench. The alarm was raised shortly afterwards, so the untreated exposure time was probably hours.
According to what my sources say
https://twitter.com/zerohedge/status/982267975179821056
So the question can still be asked if not why did they survive, but why did they survive given that nerve agent behaviour is well understood at least by state actors?
NEW THREAD
I find the timeline fascinating, that the two people could be exposed several hours previously yet fall seriously ill within minutes of each other. I’m sure we’ll get (most of) the details eventually.
@ydoethur
________________________________
I accept your statement that if my premise is correct you consider what is happening to be wrong. In fact, from your posting history and our previous discussions I would have expected nothing less from you. But do you not think as matters stand this looks very bad?
__________________________________
Yes it does look bad.
@MikeSmithson
Outside of this motion which has come and gone nothing else should happen in a time frame which would see it strongly linked back to her attendance of the protest. If she does get deselected or decides to step down before the next election that would probably be a couple of years away if not more. Whilst this could get brought up if it did happen I don't think the argument would be strong enough that it was linked back to this, although I may be wrong on that.