bickster

No, there are two types of manslaughter (three if you include corporate), voluntary and involuntary. The former is intent to harm, the latter isn't. Involuntary manslaughter is further divided again into unlawful act manslaughter and gross negligent manslaughter. A complete accident as you're saying can still be gross negligent involuntary manslaughter. It’s also sometimes referred to as reckless manslaughter

If he’s going into the next election with leaving the EHCR as a big manifesto pledge, I think he'll need another new Foreign and Home Secretary before does that as they are both on record as being against that. Dumping two of the three Great Offices of State out of his cabinet in the run up to an election and so soon after they were appointed isn’t exactly going to be a good look. Even if they did, it wouldn’t be like Brexit, the opposition parties would be united against it and an awful lot of lessons should have been learned from Brexit in how to campaign against such destructive nonsense

Yes, same for my missus. But not everyone works for the NHS or has access to a vaccine.

There is no generally available Covid vaccine this year, you have to be over 65 or certain conditions etc

Genuinely not trying to make you foolish, I read your post as trying to say something completely different.

Really? That was your point? Oh ok. It’s really not how that confused mess came across to me

If only you'd read past the first line...

Not really, there's involuntary manslaughter where the defendant didn't intend to kill or cause harm but their actions were illegal and dangerous and did result in death. I'm not saying that is the case here, in fact I think it'll be a case that is absolutely impossible to prove

So you're saying that all the other MPs that took the same action as Phillips lack ambition. I'm sure they'll agree with you I say Phillips had no fear of losing her seat because it really is almost impossible for her to do so. I have no need to ring her up, she'll have known that as will all the others. Their actions were clearly from conviction and not the demographics of their seat. The bellend that is Dan Carden voted the same way but no doubt he'll have done it out of conviction, why is Phillips not the same?

Cod is £3:50 a Ib

They'd have already known that the Palestine Issue wasn't having the effect that some journalists were claiming it would in the polls. The evidence in polls and actual elections has shown that for weeks And as said in the thread above, Phillips is in absolutely no danger of losing her seat regardless So no, I doubt she'll be kicking herself Any reason you didn't pick on any of the other ministers that were sacked / voted for the SNP amendment ?

She abstained, which was the official Labour position Also interesting that people see abstaining as voting for "the war to continue" which it absolutely does not mean.

More likely to join the LibDems, cos you know... young WInston

which is the motoring equivalent of manslaughter in this instance, you could have lifted your leg higher, you didn't therefore were negligent. It killed someone, ergo manslaughter.

meh Wordle 880 5/6

You know there’s a flu vaccine readily available for a small cost

The legal definition of manslaughter in the UK is unlawfully killing someone without intent (or malice a forethought as it used to be described). To put it another way, if there was intent, the charge would be murder.

I don’t think Starmer's view has anything to do with acceptance by Israel. I think it's twofold. Firstly he doesn't want the UK's strategic partners to be spooked by a “socialist” who might be viewed as not 100% committed to the cause (whatever that may be). Yes he probably wants something from America. And secondly, on the domestic front, he doesn't want to give free headlines to the RWM about not being tough on terrorism, especially in light of his predecessor’s apparent friendship with terrorists both near and far with the negative headlines that would obviously generate. The ghost of you know who still looms over the party

1. Wasn’t there a Labour amendment calling for a “humanitarian pause”? Genuine question as I’m out at the minute and… 2. Weren’t Labour being whipped to abstain on the SNP amendment not vote against it?

It’s absolutely classic left wing symbolism in the face of practicality

Yep was about to say, it’s the last decent album he released

Does she realise the UN Charter says otherwise? The UN Charter. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations. However, Article 51 allows for a short-term limitation to this prohibition, permitting individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs until the Security Council takes necessary measures to maintain international peace and security1. In essence, self-defense is the only legal justification for using force without UN authorization. Has the UN Security Council taken any measures to maintain peace and security?

Rules me out

So Sunak appears to be sticking with the Rwanda plan and will change domestic law in order to do it. Has he actually read the judgement?

Yes but the point is that DPN actually already stands for something else