• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,267 Awesome

About Lorelei

Profile Information

  • Nationality ---
  • Gender Female
  1. He's claiming to represent the centre ground, or is at least trying to appeal to those who consider themselves centrists. From his voting record I just don't see that (e.g. for the bedroom tax, against a mansion tax, against laws to promote equality and human rights, against raising welfare benefits, for reforming the NHS so GPs buy services for patients, for tuition fees, for raising tuition fees, etc.). So I wonder if the centrist talk is just a ploy to win over those who might normally vote Lib Dem or Labour. 
  2. Javid is now out and Gove has crept slightly ahead of Hunt. There has been no word of another TV debate between the final two, but I don't think I could stomach a Johnson and Gove debate. Johnson is a mendacious idiot and Gove a complete prat, shouting down everybody during the BBC debate. Hunt at least behaves civilly (judging from the BBC debate), though I wouldn't trust him. As for Stewart, he comes across well... until, as hooperski points out, you look at his voting record. An engaging manner, but a true blue Tory at heart. The world must be thinking the UK is a complete basket case.  
  3. Brexit: The fallout

    He has a very interesting biography. Since he has only just entered the cabinet, perhaps he doesn't have much of a chance this time around and could be mainly just expressing an interest, but could he be a future PM? He strikes me as quite a cerebral and courageous character, almost like someone from a previous age. Also seems to be showing a certain amount of principle at the moment. His book about his solo walk across Afghanistan, "The places in between", is a very good read. On the other hand, he is another Old Etonian from a privileged background, though if he were to become the right person for the job, perhaps that shouldn't be seen as a negative thing.
  4. Polite and courteous way of English expression

    "... and feel deeply remorseful." seems fine to me, and I'd follow it up with what Acton suggests. As dstanners says, it's best to avoid prefacing anything with "With all my respect" or, more idiomatically, "With all due respect", as it's usually a prelude to criticising or disagreeing with someone.   In English, I think it's best with an apology not to use too flowery language, as it might come across as not being particularly sincere.
  5. Brexit: The fallout

    There's a photo doing the rounds of an elderly gent standing in the street wearing a Brexit Party rosette and with what looks like pink milkshake down his front. I'm inclined to laugh at pompous Farage being milkshaked, but I don't think it's fair to target ordinary campaigners. Not just a nasty thing to do, but shows Remainers in a bad light. They're being accused of violence, which it technically is.   But as for Farage... "BREAKING: Nigel Farage says voters have a clear choice this week; namely strawberry, chocolate or vanilla." https://twitter.com/haveigotnews/status/1130487268941193218
  6. Brexit: The fallout

    Was having a quick look at the Brexit party's website the other day and notice that they provide no background information at all on their candidates, just their names. No time to do so or a deliberate lack of transparency?   Some people have been doing their homework. Byline Times provides a profile of 20 of Nigel 'Man of the People' Farage's candidates... and they look very much like the elites he rails against This is everything I discovered about >all< the Brexit Party MEP candidates
  7. There was quite an interesting discussion about this case on CNN the other night.   Video: With Isis fall, Europe faces returnees dilemma   "Christiane Amanpour speaks with Professor Peter Neumann and al-Qaeda member-turned spy Aimen Dean about how to approach the looming crisis."
  8. She would surely have to be thoroughly deprogrammed if she's not going to post a risk on returning to the UK. If successful, that might make her valuable, if she could prevent others from following the same path. On the other hand, she didn't seem too articulate in her BBC interview so maybe isn't all that bright.   Here's a discussion from This Morning on the subject, involving a white woman who'd been groomed by extremists (and seems possibly even more inarticulate than Shamima Begum): Should the ISIS schoolgirl have her baby in Britain?
  9. I thought I'd update this thread, as I still believe Rolf Harris was convicted of crimes he didn't commit. I was a bit abrupt back in 2015 when I posted and will flesh things out a bit. The reason why I posted the two links in the first post was not to spam the board. It was because the petition provides a very eloquent potted summary of why many people think he experienced a miscarriage of justice, while the Facebook page gives further details.   Rolf Harris (now 88, soon to turn 89) was released on licence in 2017, having been jailed in 2014 after being found guilty of 12 counts of sexual assault based on allegations by four accusers, and has since faced further allegations and two further trials. These subsequent trials did not result in a conviction. He has also been cleared on appeal of one conviction resulting from one of the four accusers' allegations in his first trial, i.e. molesting an 8-year-old in an autograph queue. The other convictions related to allegations by three women claiming they were 15/19 (seven counts), 15 (three counts) and 16 (one count) at the time of the alleged offences.   All four women did not come forward until after news broke about the Jimmy Savile allegations/compensation claims and all claimed compensation, including the woman whose allegation was overturned on appeal. She reportedly netted many thousands of pounds and there has been no word as to whether she has had to pay it back. Another of the four, from Australia, waived her anonymity, and sold [sic] her story to the Australian media before the trial. She also gave another interview to one of the same media outlets after the trial. Another, whose story changed considerably mid-trial regarding her age and the location/event at which she alleged the offence took place, gave a media interview after the trial with her face hidden and wearing a wig, claiming she had never been the same since Rolf Harris assaulted her (she claimed he squeezed her left buttock, according to the judge's sentencing remarks). The main accuser, with whom Rolf Harris admitted to sexual involvement when she was between 18 and 29, had previously asked him for thousands and been turned down.   I think the context in which his accusers came forward is important. Rolf Harris's name was released on Twitter with the hashtagged words #Savile and #sexual offences in November 2012 months before he was arrested or charged by the ex police constable who presented the October 2012 ITV programme airing allegations about Jimmy Savile that triggered the media frenzy over Savile and sparked further claims of abuse and claims for compensation against the Savile estate, the BBC, etc.: "Breaking : Rolf Harris currently being interviewed under caution at police station as part of #Savile other #sexual offences"   https://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas/status/274181776283406337?lang=en   The tweet attracted several hundred retweets (the tweet now says 767 but it was nearer 900 when I first saw it). I don't use Twitter, but saw chatter about the tweet elsewhere online, so many more than the actual re-tweeters and their followers could have seen it too. I believe that, in the context of the Savile allegations/compensation claims, the tweet with that wording and/or related online chatter could potentially have sparked ideas in anyone anywhere in the world with an internet connection. (For the ex police constable's views on other people being "fair game", see second post in this thread.)   Coincidentally (or perhaps it wasn't a coincidence), the tweet went out and Rolf Harris was questioned by police on the day the Leveson report was published, which said: "I think that it should be made abundantly clear that save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances (for example, where there may be an immediate risk to the public), the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press nor the public." I believe the release of Rolf Harris's name in this way may well have undermined his ability to get a fair trial.   So why was he unable to appeal successfully against the other three accusers' claims?   It is apparently difficult to provide new evidence of not having committed an historic crime of this kind, especially if the crime did not in fact occur, as explained in this article: We are surviving victims of a false accuser and wrongful conviction. Our family is in trauma.   Moreover, according to the barrister Rolf Harris employed for his (successful) second and third trials and (partially successful) appeal (incidentally the same barrister employed by Dave Lee Travis, who also faced historic sex allegations), appealing a criminal conviction is notoriously difficult: Video: Appealing a conviction Hope this helps to clarify the reasons behind this thread and perhaps make people consider whether Rolf Harris really is a paedophile/pervert/sex offender, etc., as he is repeatedly referred to in the media (e.g. in recent news about him foolishly waving to children behind glass inside a school while talking to a wood sculptor working on school grounds near his home).      
  10.   Recent petition addressed to the UK justice minister Review the conviction of Rolf Harris, it is a miscarriage of justice   Facebook page arguing that there was no evidence for the claims Support Rolf Harris