Best Of

The insanity of politicians telling us that diversity is our strength, and warning of people using the problems in the Middle East to stir up trouble by dividing Muslims and Jews is gaslighting of the highest order. The fact we have imported so many people who feel deeply about what is happening in the Middle East and subcontinent is the cause of the divide. Most English people don’t care


I posted this last night, and @foxy replied saying the polling on our involvement in war proves me wrong. I disagree, he misses my point. It’s not military intervention that people don’t care about, it’s the Middle East. If we drew a big line around that part of the world, and the subcontinent, and never mentioned them again, most people wouldn’t care less. It’s due to mass immigration that there are so many with passionate views on the problem that lead to division, so it’s an imported problem that we didn’t need. Most normal English people are happy to let the mad mullahs do what they like as long as they don’t do it here and we are not involved

Diversity is not our strength, it is our Achilles heel

The mad Mullahs were just doing what they liked and most people here weren't that bothered until the Israelis and Americans started lobbing bombs at them and we got dragged into it. Now there's a war going on it is Reform voters who are massively out of line with the median opinion, not the wokerati or minorities. As for the middle east more broadly, plenty of people of all backgrounds are exercised by it, as is only right when tens of thousands of people are being killed while the West wrings its hands. Diversity has sweet FA to do with it.

With the Afghan war, it was well planned and long prepared.

It was a fucking disaster.

With the Iraq war, it was well planned and long prepared.

It was a fucking disaster.

With this one, it's been done on the spur of the moment because Netanyahu's popularity was tanking and Trump urgently needed a distraction from the Epstein files and the references to forcing a 13-year-old girl to perform oral sex on him. It has not been planned, and it has not been prepared.

It has been a much bigger fucking disaster, and we're only a week in.

The amazing thing is that anyone supports it. It just shows how little attention most people pay to the news.

No they were not. The Afghan War removed the Taliban and saw Bin Laden killed, it was withdrawing the troops by Biden that was the disaster and let the Taliban back in power.

The Iraq War removed Saddam and Iraq now elects its own government. This one also killed the Ayatollah and many senior regime leaders and in the first weekend at least was a great success

The only Iraqi I know, my dentist, says that overthrowing Saddam was a huge mistake that ruined the country. Sometimes it’s better the devil you know

Not so sure about Sadam

Removing Gaddafi was a huge unnecessary mistake.

He'd actually built health and education that would put us to shame.

Not defending his excesses but Libya is a basket case now.

With the Afghan war, it was well planned and long prepared.

It was a fucking disaster.

With the Iraq war, it was well planned and long prepared.

It was a fucking disaster.

With this one, it's been done on the spur of the moment because Netanyahu's popularity was tanking and Trump urgently needed a distraction from the Epstein files and the references to forcing a 13-year-old girl to perform oral sex on him. It has not been planned, and it has not been prepared.

It has been a much bigger fucking disaster, and we're only a week in.

The amazing thing is that anyone supports it. It just shows how little attention most people pay to the news.

No they were not. The Afghan War removed the Taliban and saw Bin Laden killed, it was withdrawing the troops by Biden that was the disaster and let the Taliban back in power.

The Iraq War removed Saddam and Iraq now elects its own government. This one also killed the Ayatollah and many senior regime leaders and in the first weekend at least was a great success

The only Iraqi I know, my dentist, says that overthrowing Saddam was a huge mistake that ruined the country. Sometimes it’s better the devil you know

Not so sure about Sadam

Removing Gaddafi was a huge unnecessary mistake.

He'd actually built health and education that would put us to shame.

Not defending his excesses but Libya is a basket case now.

Gaddafi arranged for the blowing up of an airliner over Scotland, it was Libyan rebels who removed him, the West just provided air cover

With the Afghan war, it was well planned and long prepared.

It was a fucking disaster.

With the Iraq war, it was well planned and long prepared.

It was a fucking disaster.

With this one, it's been done on the spur of the moment because Netanyahu's popularity was tanking and Trump urgently needed a distraction from the Epstein files and the references to forcing a 13-year-old girl to perform oral sex on him. It has not been planned, and it has not been prepared.

It has been a much bigger fucking disaster, and we're only a week in.

The amazing thing is that anyone supports it. It just shows how little attention most people pay to the news.

No they were not. The Afghan War removed the Taliban and saw Bin Laden killed, it was withdrawing the troops by Biden that was the disaster and let the Taliban back in power.

The Iraq War removed Saddam and Iraq now elects its own government. This one also killed the Ayatollah and many senior regime leaders and in the first weekend at least was a great success

The only Iraqi I know, my dentist, says that overthrowing Saddam was a huge mistake that ruined the country. Sometimes it’s better the devil you know

Not so sure about Sadam

Removing Gaddafi was a huge unnecessary mistake.

He'd actually built health and education that would put us to shame.

Not defending his excesses but Libya is a basket case now.

Gaddafi arranged for the blowing up of an airliner over Scotland, it was Libyan rebels who removed him, the West just provided air cover

And, he provided weapons, training, and finance to PIRA.

With the Afghan war, it was well planned and long prepared.

It was a fucking disaster.

With the Iraq war, it was well planned and long prepared.

It was a fucking disaster.

With this one, it's been done on the spur of the moment because Netanyahu's popularity was tanking and Trump urgently needed a distraction from the Epstein files and the references to forcing a 13-year-old girl to perform oral sex on him. It has not been planned, and it has not been prepared.

It has been a much bigger fucking disaster, and we're only a week in.

The amazing thing is that anyone supports it. It just shows how little attention most people pay to the news.

No they were not. The Afghan War removed the Taliban and saw Bin Laden killed, it was withdrawing the troops by Biden that was the disaster and let the Taliban back in power.

The Iraq War removed Saddam and Iraq now elects its own government. This one also killed the Ayatollah and many senior regime leaders and in the first weekend at least was a great success

The only Iraqi I know, my dentist, says that overthrowing Saddam was a huge mistake that ruined the country. Sometimes it’s better the devil you know

Not so sure about Sadam

Removing Gaddafi was a huge unnecessary mistake.

He'd actually built health and education that would put us to shame.

Not defending his excesses but Libya is a basket case now.

Gaddafi and his supporters were open about intending to massacre opponents in the East of the country. And, he had carried out numerous acts of war against the UK. Finally the dildo of consequences arrived for him.

This Labour government is the worst ever, imagine a world without solicitors.

Law Society chief: Lammy risks triggering collapse of high street firms

Justice Secretary warned that ‘once the solicitors have left town, they won’t go back’

David Lammy’s planned £100m tax raid on the legal industry risks forcing swathes of high street solicitors out of business, the head of the Law Society has warned.

Mark Evans, the new president of the Law Society, which represents more than 200,000 solicitors, said that the Justice Secretary’s proposals to start taxing interest payments earned on money in client accounts threatened to prove the final nail in the coffin for local law firms.

He said they risked having a permanent effect on Britain’s high streets at a time when many town and city centres are already grappling with rising vacancy rates.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/03/10/lammy-risks-triggering-collapse-of-high-street/

I’ve got to say I really don’t understand the logic of this.

Either the money belongs to the clients (it should) and should be taxed as income if received; or it belongs to the solicitors and should be taxed as part of their partnership profits (this would include if it is used as an offset to fees because it is effectively revenue).

I suppose theoretically there is a small loophole (if it is used as an offset then it should be taxed as income for the client and then taxed as revenue for the solicitor) but I’m not sure that the quantum of money involved makes it worth the effort.

But the government shouldn’t be taxing it directly

Well for a start it is not a “tax raid” - What the Government is thinking of is using interest on client accounts to help fund legal aid. Using client account interest in this way is common in other countries.

Of course what should really happen is clients should get the interest - it is their money and their interest. However, as most client money is swept into a single client account then that is difficult to allocate the interest to the correct client (albeit I dare say virtual account products could make that simple - but not free).

So the money helps fund solicitors either directly (the interest is skimmed off) or the banks offer them a non-interest bearing client account and also something better for their business account (cheaper lending that sort of thing). Either way the solicitors currently get the benefit of, as Father Ted would say “the money just resting in my account.”

In my opinion the solicitors have no leg to stand on in this area. How can an “ethical” profession justify keeping money that is not their’s or screwing over their clients with zero interest in order to benefit themselves? Other than to say that if you take away this revenue (or the advantageous arrangements from the banks to the solicitor firms that ensue) then solicitors will simply put up fees where they can. And is all that and the various belly aching it worth the revenue you can get for legal aid?

Morning all

Those who would like to see the Iranian theocracy overthrown (and it's a laudable aim to a point) are obviously going to be disappointed with Trump's current musings. It seems we have defanged the tiger but the tiger lives and will grow new fangs.

Rather like trying to control immigration or public spending, I've yet to see anyone come up with a coherent scenario for regime change in Iran that doesn't involve American (or someone else's) ground troops or some form of invasion/incursion.

The truth is it's all about the oil and securing the Gulf States - the "freedom of the Iranian people" may be a nice slogan but that's all it is - it's not worth a single American life to free them and if they end up under one dictatorship or another, as long as the oil flows, no one in Washington or frankly anywhere else will care.

The insanity of politicians telling us that diversity is our strength, and warning of people using the problems in the Middle East to stir up trouble by dividing Muslims and Jews is gaslighting of the highest order. The fact we have imported so many people who feel deeply about what is happening in the Middle East and subcontinent is the cause of the divide. Most English people don’t care


I posted this last night, and @foxy replied saying the polling on our involvement in war proves me wrong. I disagree, he misses my point. It’s not military intervention that people don’t care about, it’s the Middle East. If we drew a big line around that part of the world, and the subcontinent, and never mentioned them again, most people wouldn’t care less. It’s due to mass immigration that there are so many with passionate views on the problem that lead to division, so it’s an imported problem that we didn’t need. Most normal English people are happy to let the mad mullahs do what they like as long as they don’t do it here and we are not involved

Diversity is not our strength, it is our Achilles heel

British people have a built in charachteristic of fair play and decency and supporting the under dog.

Despite it's colonialism, this is part of the DNA in my opinion.

So irrespective of race, religion , politics (to a lesser degree) when we see an oppressed minority being the subject of mass murder by a stronger force, it is our natural tendency to support the underdog.

The French are not sissimilar born of a number of revolutions, it is in the Scandinavian DNA

The American mentality is totally opposite brutal brash uncaring omnipotent aggressive bullying!
I sense India (politically driven) is going the same way

This Labour government is the worst ever, imagine a world without solicitors.

Law Society chief: Lammy risks triggering collapse of high street firms

Justice Secretary warned that ‘once the solicitors have left town, they won’t go back’

David Lammy’s planned £100m tax raid on the legal industry risks forcing swathes of high street solicitors out of business, the head of the Law Society has warned.

Mark Evans, the new president of the Law Society, which represents more than 200,000 solicitors, said that the Justice Secretary’s proposals to start taxing interest payments earned on money in client accounts threatened to prove the final nail in the coffin for local law firms.

He said they risked having a permanent effect on Britain’s high streets at a time when many town and city centres are already grappling with rising vacancy rates.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/03/10/lammy-risks-triggering-collapse-of-high-street/

I’ve got to say I really don’t understand the logic of this.

Either the money belongs to the clients (it should) and should be taxed as income if received; or it belongs to the solicitors and should be taxed as part of their partnership profits (this would include if it is used as an offset to fees because it is effectively revenue).

I suppose theoretically there is a small loophole (if it is used as an offset then it should be taxed as income for the client and then taxed as revenue for the solicitor) but I’m not sure that the quantum of money involved makes it worth the effort.

But the government shouldn’t be taxing it directly