Best Of

Terror arrests surge by 660% due to Palestine Action ban
A case study in "Don't do something just because you can".

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/palestine-action-ban-arrests-terrorism-act-b2886879.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Bluesky#Echobox=1766051875

What a sad sack of potatoes this Starmer government have become.

I have no time for Palestine Action. It espouses violence contrary to my principles and is actually counterproductive to the Palestinian cause. I'm happy for members to be prosecuted when merited on normal laws.

Whenever a new law/offence is proposed there really should be more of a question of whether it is needed, as politicians seem very quick to want something new, rather than explore why what look like sufficient rules already on the books are not working.

My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.

This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.



I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.

Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.


As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.

I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?

Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.

I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.

I get nervous if I don’t have at least a couple of million people around me. Visiting Tokyo was great.

My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.

This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.



I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.

Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.


As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.

I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?

Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.

I think people's brain chemistry gets changed by their environment. People who live in cities become more comfortable living cheek by jowl, people who live in the countryside get used to solitude and find excessive interaction intrusive and even threatening. Like MelonB I am an urban dweller and of course my garden is massively overlooked and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. I'm lucky to have a garden at all. I will squeeze into the tiniest spot on the tube. I don't mind graffiti. I don't notice litter. I'm sure if I was used to a more solitary kind of living I would find a city like London quite alarming, but I like being surrounded by people.

I fear even that is a bit generous to people. The sheer irrationality I've seen from locals never ceases to astonish me. I nearly fell out of my chair in shock when a parish council actually supported several dozen new homes in their village, in part as they wanted to sustain the viability of local amenities and younger people being able to live there, most unusual. Much more typical was the council which outright stated they thought young people living in the village as against its character, though that was unusually blunt.

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.

“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.

I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.

His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.

He also won’t be running against Trump.

In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.

There's also the "what did you know about the senile ex-President's senility, and why did you not do anything about it?" question. You know, the question that some right-wing commentators are so keen on asking of Democrats.

It's really hard to see the Republicans installing a sufficiently clean pair of hands in time for 2028.

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.

“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.

I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.

Plus, he has that rare thing in politics - a winning sense of humour.

My photo for the day illustrates what’s possible, and also the tremendous NIMBY pressure that will face councils at every step.

This is a building project literally in (well, behind) my backyard. They’re taking an old low rise building and adding a few storeys to it.



I think it looks nice and will fill in what was previously a rather large and incongruous gap in the roofline. And this is just the sort of dense urban milieu where we should be encouraging infill. All the neighbours are outraged and depressed by it and letters regularly go into the council.

Presumably you saw the planning application etc? From what I can see it wouldn’t be ideal for the extra storey to have a balcony which directly overlooks your garden? You might be fine with this - I probably wouldn’t (not that I have a garden!). Moving somewhere already overlooked is one thing. Becoming overlooked later-on is something else.


As long as these developments are designed properly there’s no reason to be upset as your neighbours evidently are.

I really don’t understand the overlooked thing in dense urban settings. I’m already overlooked in the garden by all my neighbours, and overlooked at the front by the houses opposite: we’re on a terraced street. The density is part of what makes it a friendly place. Why is being overlooked from the opposite direction a problem?

Don't try to apply logic to NIMBYism. You'll see people arguing passionately about destroying the character of a dilapidated car park on brownfield land, opposing grain stores in grain fields, suddenly becoming experts on rare bats and newts in their area, whilst, of course, always being in favour in principle of whatever is proposed, just not here.

On in one case, a chap proposing to build a factory on an abandoned, rotting factory site in the North of England was resolutely opposed. And built the factory in Malaysia, instead.

Apparently the graffiti covered remains of collapsed walls were “valuable heritage”.

I like objecting to not enough affordable housing by preventing any housing being built at all myself.

And acting as though any field should be treated as if it was designated Green Belt (as well as acting as though everything in the Green Belt is a picture postcard of the Cotswolds or something).

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.

“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.

I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.

His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.

He also won’t be running against Trump.

A Trump supporter complains about someone else believing in nothing except achieving power!

Trump believes in more than achieving power.

He believes in abusing that power to satisfy petty vengeance.

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.

“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.

I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.

His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.

He also won’t be running against Trump.

A Trump supporter complains about someone else believing in nothing except achieving power!

Political analysis of the week.
(Truncated for brevity.)

https://x.com/CAgovernor/status/2001479563222954403
Trump tonight:

Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me Me..

A great example of how Gavin Newsom is as unsuitable as Kamala Harris was as a presidential candidate. He’s not going to out-Trump the president, no matter how hard he tries.

“Make America California Again” has little support in California any more, especially when there’s been precisely no houses rebuilt from January’s fires.

I don't much like Newsom, but he has the advantage over Trump that he is not senile, insane, stupid, nor malevolent.

His problem is that he believes in nothing except achieving power, and that his record in California is terrible. He is, like Kamala Harris, another one of those politicians who has kept failing upwards.

He also won’t be running against Trump.

In a way, he will though, people will vote against Trump's party if they're sufficiently unhappy with Trump.

Yep. Trump won't be running but the idea he'll just bow out quietly and release his grip on the GOP is for the birds.

Indeed, the grip he managed to get on the party is impressive in a system which did not really have leaders in the same sense as here, and it soudns implausible they'll just move on from that, especially when a single word from him will destroy a candidate's chances - even assuming there's some moving on, a large chunk of the base will do whatever he tells them.

Especially since Trump seems to believe that only his personal power protects him from prosecution. Hence wanting a third term.

Once again, after Jan 6, he should have been prosecuted over trying to force Pence to set asside the election results and install him as president. Pence would have told the truth - get that guys hand on a BIble and he will tell the truth.

But apparently just prosecuting him for that, inside of a week, would be Not The Process. So it took 4 years to not collect enough evidence to prosecute.

FFS.