MicroB

Apparently he hates this photo

And there are very good reasons why the authorities will not want to immediately disclose the name, rank and role of what was a senior officer in the immediate aftermath, The man was arrested almost right away. What do people expect the media to say between when the attack happened, and when he appeared in the magistrates court in July.

They proposed raising the cap to about £100k. That's not protecting the wealthy. Labour supported this Conservative policy, so the reversal is not due to some change in principle, but about the current state of the UK finances. Essentially, the Labour policy is abandoning Cradle-to-Grave; the State might be responsible for bringing you into this world, but you are on your own when you leave it. When you pay for a residential home, that's not your savings going to the state, that's your savings going to a private company. 84% of care home beds are in the private sector. The biggest operator is HC-One, and they operate through an offshore company. Essentially, the national wealth, which is what sits in people's savings accounts, and which generally finds its way into the rest of the UK economy, is being siphoned out. https://www.epsu.org/article/uk-s-largest-care-home-operator-shifts-cash-tax-havens-new-report https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/07/care-home-operators-accused-of-extracting-disguised-profits https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59504521 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/oct/13/canadian-owners-of-signature-care-homes-avoid-uk-taxes-researchers-claim The average annual cost of a UK care home is £50,000 per resident, with maybe 50 residents per home. Most of these homes plead poverty, but the numbers don't add up. Potentially, £15bn a year is extracted from the UK economy. Savings, estates, are passed on. The very basis of the idea was created in the early 19th Century in order to move wealth of the hands of a few elderly people into the wider economy.

Its not an unknown phenomenom. Its a recognised weather event. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/10/9/502 https://oceanrep.geomar.de/id/eprint/59805/1/JGR Oceans - 2023 - Tuchen - Modulation of Equatorial Currents and Tropical Instability Waves During the 2021 Atlantic Ni o.pdf

UK: 3.3 guns per 100 Australia: 3.4 guns per 100 US: 120 guns per 100 based on gun licence records. Number 2 in the world for gun ownership is the extremely safe country of Yemen, with 50 guns per 100.

Paraphrasing David Bowie, Life on Mars

Godwin's Law. Use reason. Substitute Communist for Nazi, and see how your paragraph works. There are no communists on this forum. There are no nazis either. Though having said that, what are you? You demand others identify what political ideology they follow by refusing to divulge yours, which seems rather rude. You don't state an ideology yourself. There are many ideologies that believe in constitutional government and free enterprise. I can conclude you are a Tory. Or a Neoliberal? Or like Maggie Thatcher, a classical liberal? Capitalism is not a political creed. You weaken all of your arguments by accusing your fellow citizens of being either communists or nazis just because they don't agree with you. And don't dare try the "Yeah, but they started is". Thats the language of a schoolboy. You are a middle aged, probably elderly man who should know better. There is nothing "illegal" within the Democrat Party rule book about how Harris was selected as candidate.Its their party, their candidate. Let the voters decide rather than party cronies who previously pledge allegiance to either party.

Factually, he is Leader of the Opposition. He will be until the Conservative Party selects its next leader. I'm not sure who I will vote for during the Leadership contest. A no for Priti Patel; mainly because of what she did as Secretary of State for International Development, which revealed a dishonesty that made her unfit for any cabinet role. No for Robert Jenrick; the man has no principles, despite being very capable. No as well to Kemi Badenoch; I disagree with her views on the Equalities Act. If she dropped the anti-wokisms, I might not be too disappointed if she became leader. Though like Jenrick, I wonder if her principles are somewhat fluid. James Cleverley; he's not too clever, but is good at delivering a message, and at least is part of the centrist part of the Tories. Mel Stride will be lucky to hold onto his seat at the next election; I frankly don't know enough about him, beyond that he might be a safe pair of hands, which is all we need right now during a period in opposition, that I think will last 1.5 parliaments. Tom Tugendhat; intellectually, I feel he will do well as PM Questions. Sir Keir certainly has a powerful intellect, as a top lawyer should have. Tugendhat was Intelligence Corps, firstly in Iraq with the Royal Marines as an Arabic-speaking office, and then Afghanistan, at the specific request of the FCO. There is more than a hint of secret squirrel about his service career. He would be equally analytical. I'm not sure he could be a Prime Minister, but thats not going to be his role, vis a vie the Tories (more about rebuilding the party around a set of decent principles, and persuading people to share those beliefs, rather than pandering). But many thought SKS wasn't cut out to be PM (despite a fine mind), but look what happened. What will expose labour will be not so much the policies from Sir Keir, but the factionalism of the Labour party, which voters will reject. Tjose who want Momentum Labour should have the courage of their convictions and set up their own party, and see how that fairs. Conservatives take heed. The sooner some Tory MPs decide where their party loyalties lie, the better.

The police went right to his house, within 30 minutes of the attack. They knew who he was right away.

Col. Teeton has now been discharged from hospital. Its notable you were the only poster on the thread to wonder how the victim was. You are probably right on the "motivation", but wrong to dismiss mental illness as an excuse or attempt to evade justice. There are a lot of issues; obviously this man's state of mind on the day, if mental health was a factor. Then the state of Care in the Community, which came about from decision 25-30 years ago, in mental health reforms. The twit posting that the guy was Nigerian is presumably basing that on a Nigerian sounding name. I suppose it helps his view of the world, which is obsessed by what brown people are doing. A Nigerian digital publication identified him as Nigerian but subsequent comments suggest he is not, only of Nigerian extraction, in the same manner that Yaxley is of Irish extraction. As for the poster who suggests its an everyday occurence in the UK for someone to dress up in a NASA, get on a motorbike, ride for miles, attack someone in the street (random or targeted, not sure), then get back on the bike and ride off, and act all cooly afterwards, I suggest you haven't really much clue about the UK, nor life in general. This is an unusual occurence in the extreme, extensively covered by the press, with obvious precautions from a defence security POV, given the rank of the victim (though his identity was well discussed on social media, as fellow soldiers, past and present, expressed concern for him). An interesting analysis why he wasn't remanded for psychiatric reports when appearing in Courtback in July (making it all the more curious why "Social Media" timed the release of the article to over a month later, and in fact, not realising August 22nd had passed). At the Magistrates Court, he answered oddly, suggesting a screw loose. https://mentalhealthcop.wordpress.com/2024/07/26/attempted-murder/ He appeared in a Magistrates Court, and magistrates have no power to section someone (presently) under the Mental Health Act. The trial has been set for January, and will take about 3 weeks. Its been reported that the victim may have know his assailant's brother, which might explain why the police were able to quickly arrest the suspect (within 30 minutes of the attack).

Palin doesn't seem so terrible now. And she had some proper achievements in Public Service before.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-07-07/vice-president-trump-biden-running-mate-election-2024 Couple of wartime Democrat VPs there who were terrible for reasons no one can remember. Polls like this come out everytime there is an election because one or both of the has to be "terrible" according the the candidates. Thats why they are campaigning. In slightly less febrile times; https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4103153-kamala-harris-is-far-from-the-worst-vice-president-why-do-polls-say-otherwise/ At every elections, half truths and sometimes are spouted, as politicians scramble for every vote. The outright lies usually get found out during the campaign, and then its some action to mitigate the harm. But now its gotten to new heights. Take the case of George Santos; it seems utterly absurd how such a person got anywhere near office. But now its routine, and the lying is influential, even when found out. I know some people dismiss the role of a malign power like Putin's Russia, but this is what he has done. He has undermined our faith in politics such that "we" believe politicians are all liars, but we vote for them anyhow, like in Putin's Russia. There are a few of reasons for that. One is to shore himself up at home; there is political opposition in Russia, but its small, and the people indifferent. If he can demonstrate the Western democracies are rotten, then that undermines the messages of the opposition groups. Then there is the mission to extend Russia's influence overseas. Putin still believes in the USSR (greatest tragedy of the 20th century etc) and believes Russia is still a super power (the war in Ukraine is demonstrating it is not). He believes Russia is in competition with the USA for the souls of the world (ignoring China, and forgetting about Islam, given 10% of Russians are Muslim). He's embraced this Eurasian nonsense, which signals out the "Atlanticists" (the USA, Canada, Britain, Australia-New Zealand) as being the cause of all the world's woes, and seriously believes the world is better off without us. To win his hearts and minds, he's got to persuade the world that the Atlanticists are a rotten lot, not to be trusted, and part of that is making a mess of a societies, so that no one thinks about things like parliamentary elections again. His brutal support of Syria was to demonstrate that only Russia can bring order, not America. Its easily forgotten that despite all the flag burning, many Arabs love America. They might not like America's policies, but they love the idea of America, hence the many influential American Universities in the region. He needs to snuff that out, and disappoint them. In Syria, his policies were to ensure that the Russian navy still had refuelling facilties in Syria, which is utterly essential for any of the Black Sea fleet, whats left of it, to operate out of the Black Sea. The third objective of his undermining of Western democracies is to paralyse us. The polarisation of societies in the US, Canada, UK, France, Germany and Italy is intended to undermine our ability to come to collective decisions, react to events, and sew distrust. 5 Eyes depends on utter trust between the allies and their leadership, but now apparently, elements within the previous UK government were talking about gaming out a Trump win as a worst case scenario, and how the UK Armed Forces need to prepare for that (eg exiting of US bases from the UK, various capabilty agreements coming to an end, cessation of cooperation between UK and US forces). Trump can't actually take the US out of NATO; he won't live long enough given the process, but what he can do is to stop the US acting as an ally, follow the French approach of non-cooperation. If that happened, there are practical things the UK needs to do, such as figuring out how to secure control of Trident (or indeed, getting rid of it), canceling the F35 orders and so forth. How did we get to that point; two countries with a much vaunted Special Relationship, now distrusting each other. Trumpf is reportedly anti-NATO, and views it as a protection racket. His VP (who, as far as I can see, has achieved FA during his short working career) is even more anti-NATO, despite a service career

It won't work. Too many lunatics who would take a potshot. People shoot each other over trivial issues. In 2010, among males. there were 15 firearm deaths per 100,000. By 2020, it was 22 per 100,000 (DaCruz, Bryant University, , but gun ownership is more or less the same (Gallup). Its not because of more crime. In 2010, the crime rate was 389 reported crimes per 100,000, by 2019, it was down to 360 per 100,000 (Statista). People are just shooting each other more.

Susan Thistlethwaite

You have no clue about me. You cannot "buy" (sic) my opinion. And what is "traditional America"? Redcoats? Lynchings? Segregation? Coke floats? Turkey with trimmings? Pizza? Cahokia Mounds? Traditional America doesn't like braggards, with trophy wives, who's father stiffed the US people during a war of survival. Traditional America doesn't like people who made their fortune on the backs of others. They like people who made stuff. Trumpf never made a thing in his life. Why are you grieving over "weaponization" (sic) of unelected bureaucrats. You prefer elected bureaucrats. The rest of the world laughs at America for electing police chiefs, prosecutors and judges. You prefer the process of electoral cronyism to actually appointing people to the job based on skills, then firing them when they are not up to it. You don't know the difference between "to grieve" and a grievance. Given that poor use of English, and knowing many Americans when I lived in Alabama and Tennessee (with a smidgen of Missouri), I will conclude you are someone posing as an American, and that English is not your mother tongue. I don't think you understand the meaning of "political shill" either. Its just a term your handlers instructed you to use. Colonel Adam Kinzinger, after serving 3 tours in Iraq (well technically over Iraq), entered politics and was endorsed by Governor Palin. He won all his elections very solidly. He refused to vote on any climate change legislation that would raise taxes. Quite conservative. He sponsored a bill to enable combat medics to transfer their skills more easily to civvie street. Supporting the tropps, very conservative. He voted to support 2017 Republican reforms to healthcare legislation that would have repealed much of the ACA. Very conservative. He supported Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017; cutting taxes, positively Reaganesque. He constantly tweeted #chinahidthevirus. Trumpf would approve. He thought alleged kiddie fiddler Matt Gaetz should have stepped down while he was investigated for sordid trafficing of minors. That seems conservative. He supported cross state line carry laws. Conservative. On January 6 2021, he had a bad feeling and went to the Capitol rocking a .380 Rugar ACP. That is totally fecking conservative American. He seems a man of principle; he doesn't see eye to eye on many issues with those across the aisle. For most of his adult life, he has served his country. He clearly believes in Law and Order and the US Constitution. He clearly decided that Trumpf is little more than a Pound Shop (Dollar Store) Mussolini (Mussolini, for all his pouting, did actually develop clear principles). His going away speech: I quite like the cut of his jib. I hold in great esteem those in public service, in uniform or out uniform. And for those in uniform, the greatest respect for the reservists, the part timers; they sacrifice so much. I've seen much the same in the UK; the finest conservative minds hounded out of parliament by a scoundral who misused, lied to and abused his Sovereign, utterly destroying a party with hundreds of years of tradition, leaving us at the mery of Labour and the rotten lot at Reform. Trumpf has suckered you, just like he suckered people before he even got into politics.

Do you think the "Church" 100 years ago was anything like 1900 years before it, or the Church 500 years ago was anything like what passed for a Church 1500 years? The infrastructure, the terminology, the language changes (eg. King James Bible, the Tyndale Bible). Heres a thing; the only reason the Gaelic language survived in Ireland was because of Protestant missionaries. In the Catholic churches, the services were mostly in Latin. The congregation hadn't a clue. These missionaries cottoned on to if you wanted new members of the flock, talk to them in a language they understand. It looks like the agnostics/atheists moaning about a changing CoE (the Established Church) have never heard of High Church.

Decent speech from a genuinely conservative Republican (judging from his voting record). Trumpf-supporting Republicans, when you look at their voting records and beliefs, are not really conservative (they don't really understand the term). The same happened with the Tories, and the whole nonsense of Red Wall Tories. The thing about Trumpfism; there are no principles, just grievances. Which means support for Trumpf can be fickle, just waiting for the next David Duke.

I'd, to an extent, agree, except for the mass extermination bit. Make it compulsory to neuter/spade all Bull Terriers and derivatives. Within 10-15 years, the breed will be gone. They all eventually die of cancer anyhow. My Grandad had Staffies; he went by the pedigree etc. All of them short tempered dogs, and they all cost him a fortune when they got cancer.

The other signatories to the NPT also "pontificate" about who else in the world should not have nuclear weapons.

State pensions exist; they are paid through the largesse of today's taxpayers. The military is paid by the taxpayer; its not a private enterprise, which was the case until the early 20th Century, when significant parts of the british military were the Militias, which literally were private armies. Famously, the East India Company had its own armies and navy. Under present rules, residential homes are state subsidised; they take all your money until that last £25k or so. A residential home will easily burn through £50k a year, so for most people, its more or less all gone after 5-6 years. The last Conservative government wanted to put a cap on personal care, so was proposing to initiate effectively a socialist policy (ie. in the end, the State will help you to the grave). Labour has kiboshed that. The Police are also state funded, far removed from the original Bow Street Runners, that were funded throuh a business subscription. Britain still has State funded education, a socialist idea. There is also unemployment benefit and child maintenance support. Its still possible to get social housing. Having a 2 day weekend is a socialist idea. Some say Henry Ford invented it; nah, it was an idea he stole. The 2 day weekend was established in 1843 by Marsden and Lowes who secured a saturday afternoon off for Mancunian workers. Public holidays; an example of the dull hand of government interfering with the private business of enterprise. There is a reason why football matches used to all have a saturday 3pm kickoff. Then there was then paid summer break, invented by French communists in the 1930s. Maternity leave, also very socialist. Free eyeglasses and prescriptions for kids; socialist. Vouchers for childcare; socialist. Veteran's pensions from a grateful nation; socialist. Lots of policies embraced by Brits who describe themselves as anti-socialist, yet would consider many of these things the natural order of things. I suspect many Americans would be quite jealous of the ability to take a paid vacation, take maternity leave or even something like redundancy rights. Market Socialism and Free Market Capitalism are probably dead in the West; we don't make anything to control, because of Free Market Capitalism, and now the most ardent proponants of capitalism are finding themselves espousing quasi-communist (Godwin Law Mk2) policies of protectionism (what gives them the goddam right to tell the owners of a company where they should make things). We are left with vacuous Populism. No one calls themselves a populist; that's a labeled applied by others. Populism has no ideology besides being all things to all men, ideas that bend with the wind. Populism feeds on fear. Charlie Chaplin's largely adlibbed Great Dictator speech still has an impact 90 years later, thanks a bit to an Inception soundtrack https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ Perhaps the old isms have had their day; they were largely responses to technological changes in society. Our societies are undergoing profound change due to technology, but the question will be whether we become slaves to the technologies or masters. And become masters for what purpose; we want the technologies to fix the problems in the world (eg environmental damage) and to free our time up (which is the general direction of travel taken ever since man discovered fire leading to the paid time off or early retirement in Thailand). This is when we get into gene Roddenberry visions of a society where money has no meaning. Maybe that ism is technoutopianism. Though that is an ideology, but not a political ideology (yet).

Well were. You are getting wound up about a job interview from 7 years ago, that went to an industrial tribunal, which resulted in the faulty policy being ditched. Its a police service. I was in Northern Ireland when the RUC was about. It didn't really represent the community that it policed, because there were hardly any Catholic officers serving. A lot of good has been made in Northern Ireland policing by getting Catholics to join up; it was complex why they weren't. Intimidation from parts of their own community for a start. But also, within the RUC, loyalist infiltrators. Still not perfect, but far better, as the PSNI.

I think it refers to a link embedded in the original version of this article https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/08/19/the-police-cant-be-impartial-while-discriminating-white/ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/02/22/police-force-guilty-discrimination-rejecting-white-heterosexual/ The full judgement is here, of one doesn't want to read an article containing spin: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c66abfd40f0b61a1e93a27a/Mr_M_Furlong_v_The_Chief_Constable_of_Cheshire_Police_2405577.18_judgment_and_reasons.pdf If you can't get past the DT paywall (there is a way involving a single key on the keyboard), it refers to a case brought by Matthew Furlong against Cheshire Police at an Industrial Tribunal, where it was found that he was a victim of positive discrimination. He didn't get the job because he was white heterosexual, he didn't get it because the other candidates weren't (his lawyer tried to spin the white heterosexual bit in a comment to journalists). Cheshire Police had been taken to task in 2015 for being one of 4 police forces without a single black officer. Cheshire has an ethnic minority population of 6%. Unlike other police services, Cheshire Police made a disproportionate response to the criticism, by instituting a yes-no selection system with a low threshold, rather than a points system. Basically, the application system involved a series of interviews. Furlong performed well in the interviews by all accounts, and was well prepared. However, Cheshire police merely put in pass/fail for each interview, not a grading, leaving positive discrimination as being the only mechanism of recruit selection. The original article paints a picture of events over the past 5 years, though actually Cheshire Police's issue dates to 2017, with the case being settled in 2019. Notably, Mr Furlong actually withdrew the complaint; his father was a Chief Inspector. He went on to join Cheshire Police. Now why did Cheshire Police come up with the original policy. About a week before the report on Cheshires lack of BAME officer came out, then Home Secretary Theresa May, in a speech to the National Black Police Association Conference, said: At the time, she was in a well publicised spat with Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who at the time wanted to increase stop and search, following an increase in knife crime. The Home Office rejected this saying there was no correlation in London boroughs in the level of stop and search and knife crime. The Office of National Statistics thought that the notional rise in knife crime was actually due to the police bothering to report crime, rather than an actual rise. The Chief Constable of Cheshire at the time the new selection was put in place was Simon Byrne, who went on to head the PSNI. Ironically, that is a police force where the demographics are very sensitive. It seems to me that someone in Cheshire Police interpreted the Home Secretary's critique as being "we better recruit 120 ethnic minority officers ASAP", without really understanding the issue.

I've noticed a new variant of Godwin's law, where any internet conversation inevitably results in comparisons to the Nazis Mike Goodwin talking years later about his Law https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2013/03/godwins-law-mike-godwin-hitler-nazi-comparisons.html But actually Godwin's Law predates before even MIke Goodwin was born. It was the East Germans who came up with it in the 50s, when they took umbrage at broadcasts from "Radio in the American Sector", which was obviously broadcasting news about the free world into the GDR. The best the GDR could come up with was to literally call the American broadcasters a bunch of Nazis. Now it seems there are elements of society, for reasons only known to themselves. to substitute Communist/Socialist for Nazi. This isn't the same as Reds-under-the-Bed. Like people who threw around the word Nazi into every conversation, this mob of thickos don't really have any idea of what Communist or Socialist (or Marxist, Trotskyite, Leninist etc) actually means.. Its just some word they heard their grandad used when they were a kid, and now they are using, in same way as "Nazi" to try and shut down discussion, which is very Communist of them. I expect Yellow Peril to see some revival in some quarters (this quite an old term of abuse, reaching back to the 19th century); the Kaiser used the term die Gelbe Gefahr, and used that as the excuse for war with China, which is reality was all about setting the stage for WW1, and ultimately who would hold hegemony over the Globe (the Kaiser thought it should be him).

Firstly, you have to take into account that "Social Media" is deliberately posting provocative articles, often selectively paraphrased, to stoke enmity and division, and, importantly, generate traffic for a forum that was recently sold, and probably, like most other forums now, dying on its knees. "Social Media" I noticed doesn't take a side, just seems to revel is the resulting discourse. I am not sure why you are trying to make this a freedom of speech thing. I suspect <deleted> stirring. The UK has no general right to free speech, but under Common Law, freedom of expression is a negative right , which means the government is obliged to take no action against a person because of their views, but no one else is obliged to help facilitate publishing those viewpoints, nor listen to them nor agree with them. ie some nutter can't demand a tv or radio station propagate his views. They can cut him off, because they are not the government. Those rights are enhanced by the ECHR, which might be moot given that the UK is likely to withdraw from that within the next 10 years. In the case of Ashkan Kareem; you misread the article, maybe because because English is not your first language. He was not arrested for chanting racist and far-right slogans. He was part of a group confronting other rioters. His defence was that he was trying to defend a mosque. But where his defence fell down was because he admitted charging the crowd, and thus guilty of violent disorder. There are allegations he threw something at the crowd, though he claimed it was just a throwing action, which is bordering on the ridiculous. Police footage suggests he threw something, at people or at cars. https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2024-08-14/man-caught-on-cctv-throwing-missile-during-violent-disorder-convicted Violoent disorder comes under the Public Order Act 1986, and there are clear sentencing guidelines. You can go to prison for upto 5 years. He plead guilty, so the Judge's job was to sentence. To his (slight) credit, he turned himself in. First the judge considers the level of culpability; A, B or C. C basically means threats of violence, and a lack of planning. Category B involves groups, and a degree of planning; he traveled to "defend the mosque", he wasn't someone passing by who on the spur of the moment, got involved. He was part of a group. Category A means you are Category B, plus you have come tooled up (ie you brought weapons). There is suspicion about whether he brought something to throw; can't be proven. So he was a Category B offender. Next is the level of harm he caused, 1, 2 or 3. 1 is the most serious, and is combinations of harm considered in category 2. Category 2 includes actual injury, destruction of private property, loss of earnings (eg the pub hat to shut, so the staff didn't get paid), cost to the public purse, attacks on police and other public servants. You get the picture. Category 3 is basically making a bunch of threats and shuting. A combination C3 is at the lowest end of the violent disorder spectrum, and for that the starting point is 26 weeks inside; mitigation can bring that down to a community order (cleaning dog <deleted> or something). A1 means probably 4 years inside, but mitigation might bring this down to 3 years. Kareem was probably B3; he could have got 2 years inside, so should consider himself lucky. He will likely be deported after serving his sentence.

20% of US males have a conviction for driving while under the influence by the age of 40, George W Bush has one, Dick Cheney has two. Bush was convicted in 1976, and that had no effect on his election as Governor, nor of course, President 24 years later. He only disclosed it when running for President, and never disclosed it when running as Governor. I would put wife beaters and child abusers as lowest of the low. Alongside rapists, no matter how those rapists want to define rape. But apparently some here would rather rub shoulders with a paedophile than a drunk driver. I doubt that actually true, but I suspect someone who spits out "drunk drivers are the lowest of the low", in the context of a discussion about a politician, don't actually mean that, just stating something for effect. Most drivers caught drinking and driving have made a mistake, and the vast majority never reoffend. Most will try and deny it, saying they were unlucky, the machine didn't work properly, "I felt fine" etc. I can understand why they do that. I don't understand the rapist who attempts to belittle his victim, even after conviction, deny what he did was even a crime, and never expresses regret. Trumpf going to say sorry?