@clawsonh.bsky.social
This photo is splendid.
November 7, 2025 at 8:01 AM
This photo is splendid.
No action however heroic by any out-group member will be treated as to the credit of the out-group.
Any adverse action by any out-group member will be treated as the responsibility of the whole out-group, and as justifying excluding them.
Look up the 'Jewish Crime' columns of pre-war German press.
Any adverse action by any out-group member will be treated as the responsibility of the whole out-group, and as justifying excluding them.
Look up the 'Jewish Crime' columns of pre-war German press.
November 5, 2025 at 3:45 AM
No action however heroic by any out-group member will be treated as to the credit of the out-group.
Any adverse action by any out-group member will be treated as the responsibility of the whole out-group, and as justifying excluding them.
Look up the 'Jewish Crime' columns of pre-war German press.
Any adverse action by any out-group member will be treated as the responsibility of the whole out-group, and as justifying excluding them.
Look up the 'Jewish Crime' columns of pre-war German press.
Those almonds look great: I'm sorry I can't eat some!
September 25, 2025 at 2:29 AM
Those almonds look great: I'm sorry I can't eat some!
It's been in the better local bookshop here since last week (Queanbeyan, NSW, Australia).
August 26, 2025 at 10:25 AM
It's been in the better local bookshop here since last week (Queanbeyan, NSW, Australia).
In Australia, the inconvenient evidence of war crimes comes from forces who were there.
Believing soldiers testifying against their own interest? Never from a Robert James, eh?
Believing soldiers testifying against their own interest? Never from a Robert James, eh?
July 20, 2025 at 4:22 AM
In Australia, the inconvenient evidence of war crimes comes from forces who were there.
Believing soldiers testifying against their own interest? Never from a Robert James, eh?
Believing soldiers testifying against their own interest? Never from a Robert James, eh?
Are you implying that the promoters of privatisation were, by this standard, 'uninterested' observers? (Or, in English, 'disinterested' observers: but you can't use that word, because people with a view are generally still disinterested.
But privatisation proponents were seeking their own profit.)
But privatisation proponents were seeking their own profit.)
June 10, 2025 at 6:25 AM
Are you implying that the promoters of privatisation were, by this standard, 'uninterested' observers? (Or, in English, 'disinterested' observers: but you can't use that word, because people with a view are generally still disinterested.
But privatisation proponents were seeking their own profit.)
But privatisation proponents were seeking their own profit.)
Jolyon Maugham KC says that has no impact on how much should be paid to re-nationalise.
June 10, 2025 at 6:20 AM
Jolyon Maugham KC says that has no impact on how much should be paid to re-nationalise.
A professor of law at King's College, writing for think tank Common Wealth, points out that the huge wealth extraction from privatised water, and the failure to deliver working safe operation, reduce the market value of these operations.
'Labour is lying', says Jolyon Maugham KC.
'Labour is lying', says Jolyon Maugham KC.
June 9, 2025 at 6:43 AM
A professor of law at King's College, writing for think tank Common Wealth, points out that the huge wealth extraction from privatised water, and the failure to deliver working safe operation, reduce the market value of these operations.
'Labour is lying', says Jolyon Maugham KC.
'Labour is lying', says Jolyon Maugham KC.
And a really good book too!
June 5, 2025 at 12:52 AM
And a really good book too!
An unqualified audit is, well, unqualified. Findings explain why it is unqualified despite public assertions of impropriety.
Qualified audits are qualified for reasons explained in fndings. What are the qualifications and the reasons? They may be more or less significant and in very different ways.
Qualified audits are qualified for reasons explained in fndings. What are the qualifications and the reasons? They may be more or less significant and in very different ways.
May 30, 2025 at 4:04 AM
An unqualified audit is, well, unqualified. Findings explain why it is unqualified despite public assertions of impropriety.
Qualified audits are qualified for reasons explained in fndings. What are the qualifications and the reasons? They may be more or less significant and in very different ways.
Qualified audits are qualified for reasons explained in fndings. What are the qualifications and the reasons? They may be more or less significant and in very different ways.
Are we not to notice that you are comparing a chart of net approval ratings of individual leaders, to a figure for government support?
Try like with like. Use Starmer's net approval rating at the same time period.
Try like with like. Use Starmer's net approval rating at the same time period.
April 1, 2025 at 9:28 PM
Are we not to notice that you are comparing a chart of net approval ratings of individual leaders, to a figure for government support?
Try like with like. Use Starmer's net approval rating at the same time period.
Try like with like. Use Starmer's net approval rating at the same time period.
An option of backing a peace deal with peacekeepers is not an 'obsession for endless wars'.
Unless, of course, you think no peace deal with Putin can be trusted and Putin is bound to attack peacekeepers.
And you think every other peacekeeping effort around the world an 'obsession for endless wars'.
Unless, of course, you think no peace deal with Putin can be trusted and Putin is bound to attack peacekeepers.
And you think every other peacekeeping effort around the world an 'obsession for endless wars'.
March 31, 2025 at 8:52 PM
An option of backing a peace deal with peacekeepers is not an 'obsession for endless wars'.
Unless, of course, you think no peace deal with Putin can be trusted and Putin is bound to attack peacekeepers.
And you think every other peacekeeping effort around the world an 'obsession for endless wars'.
Unless, of course, you think no peace deal with Putin can be trusted and Putin is bound to attack peacekeepers.
And you think every other peacekeeping effort around the world an 'obsession for endless wars'.
I am the one acknowledging competing views.
You are the one pretending that the 'treason by the king would be treason against themselves, so it's ridiculous' view is the only one.
Now you claim familiarity with English popular opinion, because 'historiography has advanced'.
Keep revealing yourself.
You are the one pretending that the 'treason by the king would be treason against themselves, so it's ridiculous' view is the only one.
Now you claim familiarity with English popular opinion, because 'historiography has advanced'.
Keep revealing yourself.
March 21, 2025 at 12:15 AM
I am the one acknowledging competing views.
You are the one pretending that the 'treason by the king would be treason against themselves, so it's ridiculous' view is the only one.
Now you claim familiarity with English popular opinion, because 'historiography has advanced'.
Keep revealing yourself.
You are the one pretending that the 'treason by the king would be treason against themselves, so it's ridiculous' view is the only one.
Now you claim familiarity with English popular opinion, because 'historiography has advanced'.
Keep revealing yourself.
Some thought the king was right. More thought he wasn't. That was what the dispute was about: so pretending the only position was that of the king is, well, not thinking like the seventeenth century Brtitish at all.
March 20, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Some thought the king was right. More thought he wasn't. That was what the dispute was about: so pretending the only position was that of the king is, well, not thinking like the seventeenth century Brtitish at all.
'The theory that the king could commit treason against himself' was, precisely, reflecting the view that the king is the nation, the government, and the law.
Those who didn't hold such a view, precisely, were holding that a king's treason was against nation, government and law: being beyond a king.
Those who didn't hold such a view, precisely, were holding that a king's treason was against nation, government and law: being beyond a king.
March 20, 2025 at 7:26 AM
'The theory that the king could commit treason against himself' was, precisely, reflecting the view that the king is the nation, the government, and the law.
Those who didn't hold such a view, precisely, were holding that a king's treason was against nation, government and law: being beyond a king.
Those who didn't hold such a view, precisely, were holding that a king's treason was against nation, government and law: being beyond a king.
There was no theory that the king could commit treason against himself. The theory, now well established in the common law, is that the king can commit treason against the country, its laws and people.
Followers of divine right pretend the king is the country and the law and commands the people.
Followers of divine right pretend the king is the country and the law and commands the people.
March 19, 2025 at 8:41 AM
There was no theory that the king could commit treason against himself. The theory, now well established in the common law, is that the king can commit treason against the country, its laws and people.
Followers of divine right pretend the king is the country and the law and commands the people.
Followers of divine right pretend the king is the country and the law and commands the people.
Charles I received a scrupulously fair trial (for that time), on really serious treason charges. He was found guilty because he was guilty; there's no plausible contrary view.
The 'rump parliament' of the Commons was not purged, by force or otherwise, in setting up the Commissioners and trial.
The 'rump parliament' of the Commons was not purged, by force or otherwise, in setting up the Commissioners and trial.
March 19, 2025 at 4:27 AM
Charles I received a scrupulously fair trial (for that time), on really serious treason charges. He was found guilty because he was guilty; there's no plausible contrary view.
The 'rump parliament' of the Commons was not purged, by force or otherwise, in setting up the Commissioners and trial.
The 'rump parliament' of the Commons was not purged, by force or otherwise, in setting up the Commissioners and trial.
This is how the chambers look during nearly every debate on a Bill.
Well, better attended than most.
I think poorly of Badenoch and that's no reason for playing to the prejudice of people who have no experience or understanding of how Bills are debated.
Well, better attended than most.
I think poorly of Badenoch and that's no reason for playing to the prejudice of people who have no experience or understanding of how Bills are debated.
March 10, 2025 at 7:32 PM
This is how the chambers look during nearly every debate on a Bill.
Well, better attended than most.
I think poorly of Badenoch and that's no reason for playing to the prejudice of people who have no experience or understanding of how Bills are debated.
Well, better attended than most.
I think poorly of Badenoch and that's no reason for playing to the prejudice of people who have no experience or understanding of how Bills are debated.
Thanks kindly for this info.
Clearly the original report was out of line to report Giuliani had 'fully satisfied' the judgment liability.
This appears to be an adjournment pending meeting the requirements of a settlement, and those lesser requirements have not yet been met.
Clearly the original report was out of line to report Giuliani had 'fully satisfied' the judgment liability.
This appears to be an adjournment pending meeting the requirements of a settlement, and those lesser requirements have not yet been met.
February 26, 2025 at 8:16 AM
Thanks kindly for this info.
Clearly the original report was out of line to report Giuliani had 'fully satisfied' the judgment liability.
This appears to be an adjournment pending meeting the requirements of a settlement, and those lesser requirements have not yet been met.
Clearly the original report was out of line to report Giuliani had 'fully satisfied' the judgment liability.
This appears to be an adjournment pending meeting the requirements of a settlement, and those lesser requirements have not yet been met.
We now know that the parties have a settlement agreement and want a pause while they see whether it will be met.
Giuliani has not met the judgment against him.
He has not met a lesser settlement, yet.
The NBC report was wrong and misleading to claim he had satisfied judgment.
Giuliani has not met the judgment against him.
He has not met a lesser settlement, yet.
The NBC report was wrong and misleading to claim he had satisfied judgment.
February 25, 2025 at 8:06 PM
We now know that the parties have a settlement agreement and want a pause while they see whether it will be met.
Giuliani has not met the judgment against him.
He has not met a lesser settlement, yet.
The NBC report was wrong and misleading to claim he had satisfied judgment.
Giuliani has not met the judgment against him.
He has not met a lesser settlement, yet.
The NBC report was wrong and misleading to claim he had satisfied judgment.
Thanks to Sprecken's leg work, we now know that the parties have come to a settlement sgreement and want to suspend enforcement to see if the agreement can be carried out.
No, Giuliani has not paid out the judgment, and has not yet paid out some lesser settlement.
No, Giuliani has not paid out the judgment, and has not yet paid out some lesser settlement.
February 25, 2025 at 8:03 PM
Thanks to Sprecken's leg work, we now know that the parties have come to a settlement sgreement and want to suspend enforcement to see if the agreement can be carried out.
No, Giuliani has not paid out the judgment, and has not yet paid out some lesser settlement.
No, Giuliani has not paid out the judgment, and has not yet paid out some lesser settlement.
Go on.
Link to the filing, so we know what it says - and who says it.
Might it be just a filing on behalf of Giuliani seeking to stop further enforcement of the judgment on the basis of an allegation that he has satisfied the judgment?
Link to the filing, so we know what it says - and who says it.
Might it be just a filing on behalf of Giuliani seeking to stop further enforcement of the judgment on the basis of an allegation that he has satisfied the judgment?
February 25, 2025 at 4:49 AM
Go on.
Link to the filing, so we know what it says - and who says it.
Might it be just a filing on behalf of Giuliani seeking to stop further enforcement of the judgment on the basis of an allegation that he has satisfied the judgment?
Link to the filing, so we know what it says - and who says it.
Might it be just a filing on behalf of Giuliani seeking to stop further enforcement of the judgment on the basis of an allegation that he has satisfied the judgment?
In other words, the pause continues to apply to discrimination cases unless they can't be about race or gender.
When discriminated against, if your gender or race might be an issue, too bad if you are disabled.
Only white males can have disability discrimination investigated.
When discriminated against, if your gender or race might be an issue, too bad if you are disabled.
Only white males can have disability discrimination investigated.
February 21, 2025 at 4:39 AM
In other words, the pause continues to apply to discrimination cases unless they can't be about race or gender.
When discriminated against, if your gender or race might be an issue, too bad if you are disabled.
Only white males can have disability discrimination investigated.
When discriminated against, if your gender or race might be an issue, too bad if you are disabled.
Only white males can have disability discrimination investigated.
This extraordinary piece of defamation appears plainly actionable. Only the reluctance of Rachel Reeves to give oxygen to Langley could save him.
February 14, 2025 at 10:41 AM
This extraordinary piece of defamation appears plainly actionable. Only the reluctance of Rachel Reeves to give oxygen to Langley could save him.