placeholder

Because they foresee the possibility of a Russian attack on NATO allies?

if you had read the report, or even the executive summary, you would have learned that a phone call would probably have done no good. The police simply didn't care and weren't trained to deal with the problem.

Did you actually bother to read the report? Here's a link to the executive summary: https://policeconduct.gov.uk/operation-linden-report-executive-summary Nowhere in this report was there any mention of police sensitivity based on the ethnicity of the groomers. What stood out was their indifference to the abuse of the victims because the police refused to see them as victims but rather willing cooperators with their abusers. There simply was no coordination of programs to recognize the victims for what they were and to prosecute the perpetrators. According to the report, this contrasted sharply with how the rape and sexual abuse of minors was treated in Sheffield.

Of course, if you believe that access to decent medical care would have no effect on outcomes, then you've made a good point. Otherwise, not so much.

It's a pity that the previous president never quite managed to complete the plan he claimed was almost finished 5 days before his inauguration. Apparently, it would have provided health insurance for everybody. Also, he never quite managed to force insurance companies to negotiate prices with Medicare and Medicaid despite his promise to do just that. Such a pity. Trump vows ‘insurance for everybody’ in Obamacare replacement plan President-elect Donald Trump said in a weekend interview that he is nearing completion of a plan to replace President Obama’s signature health-care law with the goal of “insurance for everybody,” while also vowing to force drug companies to negotiate directly with the government on prices in Medicare and Medicaid. Trump declined to reveal specifics in the telephone interview late Saturday with The Washington Post, but any proposals from the incoming president would almost certainly dominate the Republican effort to overhaul federal health policy as he prepares to work with his party’s congressional majorities. Trump’s plan is likely to face questions from the right, after years of GOP opposition to further expansion of government involvement in the health-care system, and from those on the left, who see his ideas as disruptive to changes brought by the Affordable Care Act that have extended coverage to tens of millions of Americans https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-vows-insurance-for-everybody-in-obamacare-replacement-plan/2017/01/15/5f2b1e18-db5d-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html

And as has been pointed out elsewhere, before this McCarthy also nixed holding a fullscale independent investigation.

Given that virtually no one, apart from the now suspended police chief and maybe some members of the force, are defending the police, that in fact both the left and right are blaming them, I doubt your prediction means much.

Actually the testimony to congress was most likely an attempt to massage her image and to escape sharp questioning. I wonder if she would agree to be called back for further testimony.

There was plenty of talk about protocol in a case like this from the experts including those who trained the Uvalde police. And it certainly wasn't to wait outside and do nothing.

I wish that were the case. But the electoral college means that there are 50 polls that matter.

Are there any professional knife sharpening services available in Chiang Mai. Preferably to the south of the old city or in it but anywhere fairly near is ok. And, just to forestall some advice, I'm not interested in sharpening my own knives. At least not deep sharpening. Touch-ups I do already. Thanks.

You claimed that training and protocol policies somehow interfered with the police response. I have only seen evidence to the contrary in which police trainers responsible for training police forces to reactto such incidents criticized the Uvalde police. You have yet to share any evidence that training and protocol somehow contributed to the deficient response of the Uvalde police dept.

It such a nothing burger that ... Trump criticizes McCarthy for ‘very, very foolish decision’ to shun Jan. 6 committee Former President Donald Trump has derided Rep. Kevin McCarthy for the House minority leader’s “very, very foolish decision” not to participate in the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. “Unfortunately, a bad decision was made. This committee — it was a bad decision not to have representation on this committee,” Trump told far-right-wing podcast host Wayne Allyn Root last week. https://news.yahoo.com/trump-criticizes-mccarthy-very-very-025600520.html

Well, there has been evidence. It's just really poor quality. But I know what you mean. Even Trump's advisors in the White House admitted that they didn't have the evidence to support their claims. Which didn't stop a creature like Trump from repeatedly falsely accusing by name an elections worker in Georgia of electoral fraud in his conversation with Georgia Sec. of State Raffenberger.

So you think bloviation should be immune from criticism? And this instance is so flagrant since the information is to be found in the very article that this thread is based on.

On the one hand, you you claimed that this decision will only apply to New York. Now you're saying that similar cases won't be brought up. I guess you still haven't read the article since it's about claims of a very broad right to carry concealed weapons. You think that so much attention would be paid to this case by media of all political persuasions if this was a minor case? As for "Statin [sic}" it's a borough (county) of New York City. So no, not a law that applies only to Staten Island.

First off, you apparently didn't notice that the article I cited was not about the Uvalde shooting per se, but rather about the emptiness of the notion that if more people were armed, there would be less carnage. As for the specific case of Uvalde, I haven't seen anything to support your assertion that the police failure was due to "so many policies and protocols." Rather that they failed to follow their training. But, by all means, please share with us the source of your assertion. I'm sure you wouldn't just make that up.

The 'Good Guys With Guns' Keep Failing to Stop Mass Shootings https://time.com/6182970/good-guys-guns-mass-shootings-uvalde/

Your contention is nonsense. Lower courts will be bound by this ruling when similar cases are brought throughout the United States.

Always intriguing to see an opinion like yours that is completely unprejudiced by acquaintance with the facts. Believe it or not, the article goes into some detail about what the case is about. And it has nothing to do with "premise residence." But why let facts interfere with an opportunity to bloviate?

Broken Arrow open-carry incident raises law enforcement questions An incident in Broken Arrow a week ago raised fresh questions about how witnesses and law enforcement should respond when people walk around in public armed with assault-style rifles. A man in a tactical vest with a semi-automatic rifle and holstered pistol prompted Broken Arrow Justice Center employees to lock their doors June 13, according to a news release. AT&T store employees who then saw the man proceeded to “run out the back of the store,” and multiple 911 calls came from the parking lot of a Target store that he was walking toward, Broken Arrow police said. https://tulsaworld.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/broken-arrow-open-carry-incident-raises-law-enforcement-questions/article_a5f4a2d8-edb3-11ec-806d-bb938b4a6b13.html What would happen if this loon approached the vicinity of a school? I guess the police would have no right to stop him or ask him to move on since his right to carry enough ammunition to take out a few schoolroom's worth of kids is protected under Oklahoma law. If the Supremes decide the way they're expected to, this kind of situation would be the case nationwide.

I tried them a few months ago because the charges were less. But ETAs were so delayed that I canceled. Maybe service is faster now that they are more established and presumably have been able to recruit more drivers.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed a privileged positions for religious exemptions from laws. I think we are ultimately going to find out how sincere their commitment to that principle is. A group of Jewish plaintiffs from Florida is suing to forbit the state government from banning abortions for Jews who claim that their religion allows it. I guess we're going to find out if the Supremes think the privileged position of religion only applies to right wing Christians. Is the Religious Liberty Tent Big Enough to Include the Religious Commitments of Jews? Enter a synagogue in Florida, which filed a complaint in state court last week claiming that the Florida legislature’s new law, which goes into effect July 1, banning almost all pre-viability abortions, violates the state constitution’s religious liberty provisions, which afford even broader protections than those of the federal Constitution. In the complaint, petitioners note that while Florida seeks to ban abortion at 15 weeks’ gestation, “in Jewish law, abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman, or for many other reasons not permitted under the Act.” This kind of religious liberty claim, assuming away other procedural issues, should be recognizable to those who have successfully obtained religious exemptions from contraceptive coverage requirements under Obamacare, or from civil rights laws protecting LGBTQ Americans, or from public health rules limiting the size of religious gatherings during the pandemic. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/do-proponents-of-religious-liberty-really-intend-to-dispute-the-religious-commitments-of-jews.html

They'll find a way to blame the liberals on the Supreme Court. Or maybe start calling the 6 right wing justices CINO. Conservatives In Name Only.

So, to your way of thinking, that means her testimony, because it's under oath, is trustworthy? She's a bald-faced liar in the documentary but in her testimony she's honest and frank? Does the adjective "self-serving" mean anything to you? It is to laugh.