emetcalfe.bsky.social
Barrister. Writer. Hired Gun.
45 posts
90 followers
138 following
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Counterpoint: Bari Weiss could write in lucid and flowing prose each and every day of the week but her writing would still be trash because of all the brainworms.
comment in response to
post
When it came to his convictions for falsifying business records in New York state, Trump couldn't even pardon himself!
comment in response to
post
What does 'success' look like here? The default news source for AI-generated word slop? Hard to imagine either their writers or readership being thrilled with that outcome.
comment in response to
post
I think this will absolutely end badly for the Guardian. I appreciate that they're likely hard up for cash but what worse way to trash their reputation for integrity and accuracy than to partner up with the plagiarism snakeoil company?
comment in response to
post
Not a land border, though. They're offshore of Newfoundland
comment in response to
post
Who knew that American democracy would finally be killed by the Dunning-Kruger effect?
comment in response to
post
Palm Beach is the new Avignon.
comment in response to
post
Franco was in power for 36 years.
comment in response to
post
clip.cafe/the-insider-...
comment in response to
post
In what possible sense is a grant of indefinite leave to remain "irregular"?
It's pretty hard to get ILR, much more so than a regular visa and especially something as transitory as a visitor's visa. How could ILR, of all things, ever be considered as "irregular"?
comment in response to
post
It truly is a magic box, if your idea of magic is a grander version of autocorrect that has no notion of whether the answers it delivers are remotely accurate.
comment in response to
post
That was what the end of Oppenheimer was about: he was imagining all those swimming pools being excavated, all over the world...
comment in response to
post
The second saddest short story:
"For sale, some islands. Never used."
comment in response to
post
"Elections have consequences"?
Yes, and Bondi is an election denier! How in any sane world is that not also automatically disqualifying?
comment in response to
post
In other news, 64% of Americans don't realize that the product they're using contains something which has been around for years but which has been tendentiously redefined by venture capitalists as AI because they need to hype things.
comment in response to
post
Does the "only" imply:
(a) you've only seen mockery (from both sides)?
or
(b) you're surprised you haven't seen mockery (or other reactions) from the centre?
comment in response to
post
Liz Truss complains that the media "failed to hold bureaucrats ... to account" on things like grooming gangs.
Wasn't she, uh, Prime Minister for several days at some point? Never mind the media, what did she do about these problems when she was in power?
comment in response to
post
I can think of no better way to revitalize Britain's flagging economy than by going all in on an enormously expensive technology of doubtful accuracy and reliability, trained on data scraped from the internet without regard to copyright and data protection. What could possibly go wrong?
comment in response to
post
Maybe because these all things presuppose the existence of a transnational body with the jurisdiction to punish offences and/or award compensation for that sort of thing in the first place?
comment in response to
post
I would have been interested in knowing more about these mysterious, unnamed 'regulations' that are the alleged source of all these ills. Because if you're going to opine about democratic deficits and all the rest, you should at least be able to point at the legislation in question...
comment in response to
post
To the extent that 'far right' is the accepted term (which I'm not 100% about), I think it's the usual cowardice, i.e. fear of labelling viewpoints with any degree of popular support as extreme. But in others, it's because 'far' v 'hard' aren't obviously different and writers like synonyms!
comment in response to
post
Is it true that most people attach a meaningful difference between the two terms and that they see 'hard right' as less extreme than 'far right ' (and the same on the left fwiw)? I suspect this is more like 'red states' v 'blue states' - something that feels longstanding but isn't.
comment in response to
post
The article - congratulating Britain on attracting the "right kind of immigrant" isn't smart or liberal, it's the same smug, preening as before, just with the bigotry dialed down.
comment in response to
post
My musical adaptation of A Farewell to Arms is right on schedule.
comment in response to
post
Except that iirc he personally has no residual power to act, his powers being vested in the GG even when he's in country. And, even if he did, any powers he might have could only be exercised on the advice of his NZ ministers.
But the appeal to Charles is right, I think, morally and symbolically.
comment in response to
post
And also, taking a purposive approach, hard to see how direct actions by states against other states would be dealt with under the TA
comment in response to
post
Sure, but in this scenario we're only dealing with actions by rebels in Syris
comment in response to
post
Except that if the non-state actor becomes the government, then obviously its internal actions can't be terrorism, i.e. against itself.
comment in response to
post
The CPS could still prosecute, of course, since Al Qaeda remains proscribed and a number of terrorist offences are linked to the fact of proscription rather than the statutory definition. But if Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham becomes the government of Syria, it would become hard to sustain a prosecution.
comment in response to
post
For the purpose of Syria at least, not elsewhere
comment in response to
post
Section 1(4)(d) of the Terrorism Act 2000
comment in response to
post
Except that if the successful freedom fighter or terrorist becomes the internationally recognized government of a state, they would fall outside the statutory definition
comment in response to
post
Kétamine et punir
comment in response to
post
You might have noticed that other media outlets were very careful not to describe Haigh as having been convicted. They say that she admitted to having committed an offence (correct) or that she pleaded guilty (correct). She wasn't convicted, though, and it's wrong to report that she was.
comment in response to
post
And, as any lawyer will tell you, what a government department publishes by way of guidance isn't actually the law.
The law is s82(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020: "The conviction of that offence is to be deemed *not* to be a conviction for any purpose" other than enforcing the conditions.
comment in response to
post
It helps, I suppose, that the Guardian apparently doesn't know the difference between a conviction and a discharge, even a conditional one.
A discharge isn't a type of conviction. It's an alternative to a conviction. If a right wing paper published this, you'd call it misinformation.
comment in response to
post
It's not a conviction. It's not even a spent conviction.
Assuming that she complied with its conditions, her discharge became absolute: s14(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
comment in response to
post
I'm pretty sure £63K is close to average for school fees these days, isn't it?
Perhaps there are cheaper schools in Britain but I think you would struggle to find them.
comment in response to
post
"The Ethiopian-born Swedish athlete Abeba Aregawi, who was fifth in London, moves up to silver"
Is there an Olympic record for the slowest medal? She came fifth in 2012 and twelve years later she wins a medal!
comment in response to
post
Full Fact might have done a better job of stating the blindingly obvious point up front, rather than burying it down in the fourth or fifth paragraph.
Sometimes it's helpful to state the truth bluntly and presenting it in the guise of faux objectivity and thoughtfulness does it a disservice
comment in response to
post
Yes, apparently Serco hasn't been granted the unilateral right to expropriate billions of pounds worth of private property without primary legislation or compensation of any kind.
It's amazing what people will believe on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
comment in response to
post
Lol, why on earth *should* anyone follow her? Even if you value viewpoint diversity, she's shown zero inclination to say anything worthwhile and, as LOTO, she has absolutely no shortage of outlets for her views, including most of the UK media.
No need to pay attention to such an empty vessel.
comment in response to
post
Oh, I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
comment in response to
post
To judge by the picture, he feels his head is cold
comment in response to
post
Great article but Scofield's classic line reading is actually:
They GAVE you the answers?
They gave YOU the answers?