Best Of

When was the last time we had such an important, pivotal election this close to the summer solstice

It's going to be light after the poll closes

The 1987 general election?

11th of June.

2024, 4th July?

That's 13 days from the solstice, 1987 was 10 days away.

Though the shape of the graph is pretty flat around the solstices- kind of the converse of that horrid bit of mid January when it feels like the days should be noticeably lengthening, but they don't. Bastards.

(Though this bit- where it fails to get dark- is less good than July and August, when it's nice to be out at 9 pm and it's also dark. That's when we really get one over on nature. Oh, and the Proms are happening.)

The light nights are not helping with getting my 3 year old to sleep. Roll on December

I’m not sure swapping light nights for Father Christmas is going to bring all of the relief you seek.

The sun is now rising slightly later in morning than it was.

We’re Rejoining!

It’s inevitable.

We hold all the cards.


UK could keep special pre-Brexit terms if it rejoined EU, Michel Barnier says

Exclusive: Former chief Brexit negotiator says staying out of euro and Schengen area would be ‘perfectly possible’

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/18/uk-could-keep-special-pre-brexit-terms-if-it-rejoined-eu-michel-barnier-says

That is interesting because while there is no groundswell to rejoin the EU, there does seem to be a consensus that Brexit was a mistake or at best a damp squib. While no-one wants to go through the whole Brexit sturm und drang again, they might respond to an EU offer of a time machine or big red reset button that will magically take us back to where we were, and perhaps that has occurred to Barnier too.

Unfortunately "Perfectly Possible" and "Actually offered" are two very different things. He's entitled to his opinion but opinion is all it is!"

Peter.

"Varley's evil and graphic sexual abuse is beyond contempt. I don't believe a general extrapolation should be made because Varley was either, white, male, a teacher or gay."

Well, one of those characteristics is a risk factor for crime - and particularly for sexual crimes against children: being male. His partner was also convicted of various offences. And he, Varley, was not just a teacher but safeguarding lead at his school.

That does not mean that no men should ever adopt. It should mean that those doing the due diligence need to be very very thorough in their assessment - of character, history, motivation, lifestyle, ability to look after a baby, understanding of what looking after a very young baby involves and ability to do so - ie the emotional resilience to cope with a baby's needs and helping him thrive and develop, family support, female involvement, friends, hobbies etc etc . And not just all that.

Those doing the due diligence need a sceptical investigative mind.

The adoption went through pretty quickly. How good, how extensive was the due diligence? Did they pick up his extensive viewing of seriously revolting porn? Did they ask to look at his and his partner's computer and phones? Did they take too much comfort from the fact that he was a teacher and safeguarding lead and so relied on that rather than carry out their own inquiries? This is a classic trap and one which fraudsters and wrongdoers of all types exploit: they get past one check and then never get properly checked again because everyone else relies on that one check. And was this couple really the best set of adoptive parents to be found in Oldham?

Even very intelligent people can be horrifyingly naive about offenders and offences and what stones to turn over to look for them. And very naive about the lengths deviant people like Varley and his partner will go to to satisfy their deviancy.

Remember this case when people start talking about making surrogacy even easier than it is. There are far fewer checks than with adoptions and there has already been one horrific case in the US of two men buying a surrogate baby for the purpose of sexual abuse. Babies are not commodities to be bought and sold.

You raise many good points as to whether social workers did X or Y.

My experience from interacting with them over adult social care is they are under intense time pressure as the caseload is bonkers.

Yes but let's not ignore the sentiments behind the post.

Is she arguing gay men looking to adopt should be subjected to more scrutiny than straight men who are in a relationship with a woman? Because they are innately more dangerous? I suspect she is.

No. Read it again. Carefully this time. I said that of all the factors listed - white, male, teacher, gay - there was only one which is a well known risk factor: being male. Not being gay.

When doing checks, the scrutiny of the men should be very very thorough. And that applies to whether the man is straight, gay, in a relationship or single. Heterosexual men abuse children too.

It is the maleness which is the risk factor. Not the sexuality.

The sentiment behind my post was triggered by the apparent lack of effective due diligence. Because it has been my experience from the thousands of investigations I have done that, when you uncover a wrong'un, there is always a clue, usually several, many of them red flags, that the person was a wrong' un and, that for a variety of reasons these were either not spotted or, if spotted, not acted on. I will be interested to see what the Serious Case Review will show here.

And it was a private adoption agency which placed this baby with this couple, which may also be a factor. The agency is still operating. How competent and effective are they?

Well I'm reassured by that. Your posts describing the risks to women and children of biological males are about 90%+ focused on trans women, so you can perhaps understand why a foray into commenting on the risks posed by gay men wasn't entirely unexpected.

I'm a father of a gay son who would very much like to have children one day.

Are we expecting about 4am declarations for Makerfield? Trying to time my power nap and fit in some exam marking.

The Mexico vs South Korea match at 0200 sounds quite competitive if you are planning an all-nighter.

Presumably the Scottish seats will be a similar time.

It is tempting just to stay up and watch football, not gonna lie.

My plan is early night tonight as tomorrow has the Scotland match which kicks off at 11pm.

This whole World Cup in which Scotland are competitive, plus by elections, and A level marking is very inconvenient for me. When will Burnham condemn?

I know, I am also watching Scotland being competitive in the women's T20 world cup right now.

I cancelled all my meetings for tomorrow, I told the CEO, COO, and CFO, soz the meeting has to take place on Monday.

I have a test match, 2 teams to cheer on at the WC, some excellent women's T20 matches and the small matter of an ongoing trial. Its a hectic schedule and I am getting worn out.

Why not relax a bit and catch some of the US Open golf?

And Royal Ascot and Queens tennis. This is a ridiculous period for sports nuts, of which I am one.

Draw bias on the straight Course at Ascot today was insane.

They might just be tempted to overwater the Stands rail to try to equalise it.