Best Of

Ever so slightly off topic, I was clearing out a corner of my flat this afternoon. 20 years of accumulated crap. Mostly meaningless. Admin. Paperwork. A useless printer. All purged. Yay

But then suddenly I came across a sketch book that belonged to my ex wife (who I loved very much and only split with coz she wanted babies and I didn’t). It was full of her crazy funny eccentric drawings - even pages embroidered with wool. The epic of Gilgamesh in crayon. All her creativity and wit and uniqueness in o one pad of paper

And I sat there and, I confess, I slightly cried. Just a few manly tears but they were real

What is that? I was perfectly content - happy even. Then suddenly a land mine of emotion and memory exploded in my face and I was plunged into intense sadness

What is the psychology? The evolutionary explanation for these emotions? Very strange

It’s gone now. I’m fine again. But wow

Is it possible to exist without a printer now?

I use mine regularly but I'm someone who doesn't want to be totally digital (and often can't be in rural Hampshire)

This evening I printed off the pace notes for my race on Sunday, to be stuck on the water bottle that will sit below my bike computer and between my arms. Not a vital task, but a useful one.

Having a printer on hand is really handy - I often print out maps of walks or runs, because I find a paper map easier to read than an electronic one, for various reasons. In fact, if it's also a combined scanner, then it's even more useful.

On topic, this happened to me the other day sitting on a train. Couple get on, looks like they are heading for the airport for a holiday.

She is miffed because he has walked her to the 1713 express train rather than their intended 1731 train. This means they will be early, and thus have to change mid-journey and wait 15 minutes or so to get their original train as the express one isn't stopping at their final station.

Not a full blown row, just a series of half-muttered bitter nips, jibes, barbs and non-sequiturs at each other about the fact somehow they've ended up on this slightly earlier train. Netted out they have to wait the same amount of time either way, either at the original station to get a slightly later train or mid journey to transfer to the original train, but they are guaranteed to get there at the original intended time. Still, this displeases her immensely.

I wasn't really trying to listen in or block them out either way, but was hard to avoid somehow being privy to it. I felt quite sorry for the guy. Not "it's your fault we were late, missed our train and flight and now the holiday is RUINED!!" but instead "it's your fault we were early BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, now we have to change trains so that we get to the destination at exactly the original time we intended anyway".

I did wonder (a) how their holiday would go and (b) how much mileage was left in the relationship.

Bickering with a partner is par for the course. Mrs Foxy and I were bickering about the playlist while driving earlier. It's perfectly possible to bicker for decades. 36 years for Me and Mrs Foxy this weekend.

I am suspicious of couples that never argue. There's some weird dynamic usually, such as an oppressive partner, or simply extreme fragility as if one sharp word would end things. It must be so wearing to be walking on eggshells the whole time. Not universally of course, Foxy jr and his partner claim to have never argued in 8 years and seem perfectly content.

Happy anniversary weekend!

Evening all.
Reference the court case earlier, the jury have at least blessed the country with a new wave of loathing for Labour and Starmer.
And they don't even have '14 years' to worm their way out of it.

Don't get that at all - it was a jury verdict.

People may be upset about that but I don't see why they should blame the Government. They might blame the prosecution lawyer for not building a strong enough case.

most of the bad feeling isn’t for the outcome of this particaular case, but that this case appears to have been settled quite differently to a number of similar cases seen elsewhere.

Seems to me that the perception of 'two-tier' comes about through the vastly different results for someone who's savvy and has a lawyer compared to those for someone who isn't savvy and doesn't have immediate access to a lawyer.

Yes. Although that's more than perception it's reality.

.

Re the trial of the Labour councillor acquitted of encouraging violent disorder at Snaresbrook Crown Court. Had be been tried by a jury at Basildon Crown Court I venture he may well have been found guilty.

That is one of the drawbacks of jury trial it can depend on where the jury is drawn from, especially if a political, racial or religious element. However to his credit Jacob Rees Mogg still accepts that as he believes in juries in principle even if he disagreed with verdicts like the slave owner statue damage acquittal in Bristol.

Shame Cleverly and Philp did not follow JRM but jumped on the populist bandwagon earlier before thinking through the logic of their comments ie that all trials should be judge only with no juries at Crown Court level.

Speaking of which JRM owns Cleverly and Philp.

'This is self-evidently not an example of two-tier justice as this Councillor was cleared by a jury. Lucy Connolly offered a guilty plea so did not have a jury trial, although she probably could have done had she pleaded not guilty.'
https://x.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1956379270445752482

Has he spoken to his great friend Nigel Farage about his view ?

Perhaps he will educate Nigel on thinking a bit more before he speaks?

The only difference is Farage is leading the narrative and the polls and JRM is some rich entitled ex mp

No, there's also the difference that JRM is (for once in his life) right, and Farage wrong.

On topic, this happened to me the other day sitting on a train. Couple get on, looks like they are heading for the airport for a holiday.

She is miffed because he has walked her to the 1713 express train rather than their intended 1731 train. This means they will be early, and thus have to change mid-journey and wait 15 minutes or so to get their original train as the express one isn't stopping at their final station.

Not a full blown row, just a series of half-muttered bitter nips, jibes, barbs and non-sequiturs at each other about the fact somehow they've ended up on this slightly earlier train. Netted out they have to wait the same amount of time either way, either at the original station to get a slightly later train or mid journey to transfer to the original train, but they are guaranteed to get there at the original intended time. Still, this displeases her immensely.

I wasn't really trying to listen in or block them out either way, but was hard to avoid somehow being privy to it. I felt quite sorry for the guy. Not "it's your fault we were late, missed our train and flight and now the holiday is RUINED!!" but instead "it's your fault we were early BECAUSE YOU WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME, now we have to change trains so that we get to the destination at exactly the original time we intended anyway".

I did wonder (a) how their holiday would go and (b) how much mileage was left in the relationship.

Bickering with a partner is par for the course. Mrs Foxy and I were bickering about the playlist while driving earlier. It's perfectly possible to bicker for decades. 36 years for Me and Mrs Foxy this weekend.

I am suspicious of couples that never argue. There's some weird dynamic usually, such as an oppressive partner, or simply extreme fragility as if one sharp word would end things. It must be so wearing to be walking on eggshells the whole time. Not universally of course, Foxy jr and his partner claim to have never argued in 8 years and seem perfectly content.

We rarely argue - rarely enough that when we do have cross words, our son gets upset. There's no oppressive partner in our relationship, or extreme fragility. It's just that I know I'm right. It's just the way our relationship is, and always has been. The fact we've never had money problems probably helps, as I think many arguments have money at, or near, their root.

An ex-colleague of mine said that he and his gf (now wife) used to have monthly scheduled arguments, if they had not had one that month - in order to clear the air of any building tension.

Let’s just be clear - are the people attacking this case demanding trial by mob? People who are “obviously” guilty as assessed by “evidence” posted on social media?

I’ve just given two two examples this week where the “obvious” “evidence was bullshit.

We either protect our jury system - and it isn’t perfect - or we have mob rule.

Growing up is mostly about realizing that the world - i.e. other people - isn't likely to conform to our desires. And reaching peace with that fact.

You know what, I would *probably* have come back with a guilty verdict. I also think that Lucy Connelly's sentence was hugely disproportionate.

But I also know that the world is not always going to conform to my desires. I also know that I am not always right.

And the idea that "the mob" or some "great leader" is going to be both always correct and constantly in line with my desires is so absurd as to be laughable.