• 0 Posts
  • 49 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle






  • I agree. Further to that I believe protocol is that when speaking, one must address their comments to the speaker as opposed to any member in the chamber. It is mostly decorum and intended to keep a lid on tempers and direct personal exchanges that can flare up into a hubbub. Speaker is intended to be the impartial head master of the school he oversees and keep the house in order and apply the rules fairly. As you well will have seen - there are varying degrees of success in that pursuit.












  • I think it is important to distinguish the innocent partner here. Beach volleyball is incredibly demanding, and at the elite level, a very low population sport. It takes athletes their whole careers to just to make the world tour hoping to one day reach the olympics. For Immers he has busted his ass for years and at some point his national body probably paired him up with the other guy. It’s possible he may not have even known about it until they were partners and had established their dynamic and working relationship. Finding and building a team with a partner you click with on the court is hard-earned. I can imagine that Immers is absolutely distraught at the situation he’s been put in. He has a crappy choice here no matter what. Abandon what he’s spent his whole career building up to, now that he’s made it - because of something he had nothing to do with, knowing he may never get this chance again, even if he were to find another available partner… it takes years to learn how to play as a team; or he sucks it up, focuses on his own journey, cops the reflected criticism and hostility and tries to keep his emotions out of it…

    It’s shitty either way. He abandons his dream because of someone else’s actions; or he chases them and becomes collateral damage.

    Don’t get me started on the poor kid whose life was never the same again, having all this trauma dredged up and shoved back in her face. There’s nothing about this that doesn’t suck.


  • I know people are reacting strongly, prob a large US contingent here and that’s understandable. It is a completely different world in the UK. The police don’t carry firearms (specialist response teams do) as they are just not as available to the general public. Knives or clubs/bats are the most common weapon encountered. Even in that context I too find the sentence pretty heavy on the face of it. The article was rubbish at giving anything other than rage-bait. It didn’t explain if there were circumstances of aggravation, does he have form (ie prior same or related offences), were there vulnerable people in the vicinity, which specific charge was he accused with (possessing or threatening with) did he plead guilty, were there mitigating factors that actually reduced his sentence as the mandatory minimum sentence for “threatening with a weapon” is six months, eg did he cooperate, is he a sole caregiver for someone at home etc.

    Only thing I’ve walked away knowing is the author of the article seemed more interested in provoking outrage and upping their hit count than demonstrating any investigative nous or journalistic integrity.