I have been off work over the last couple of weeks after losing a close loved one. Grief is the burden we bear for love and losing someone close is something that we all experience at some point in our lives, but that knowledge doesn’t make it any easier when it happens to you. So I can’t imagine what the family of Sir David Amess are going through, but I know they will be hurting. I send my heartfelt condolences to them. Sir David was a fine parliamentarian, a proud advocate for his constituents and above all such a kind, generous and warm-hearted man. He will be missed on all sides of the House.
As a society we need to offer better support to people who are going through bereavement, loss and other traumatic or difficult experiences in their personal lives. I hope that the fact that I took time to deal with a bereavement will encourage other people to do the same when they are going through grief or trauma.
While I have been away from the cut and thrust of Parliament I have reflected on our political debate and the threats and abuse that now seem to feature all too often.
I have also reflected on what I said at an event at Labour Party conference. I was angry about where our country is headed and policies that have made life harder for so many people I represent. But I would like to unreservedly apologise for the language I used, and I would not use it again.
I will continue to speak my mind, stand up for Labour values and hold the government to account. But in the future I will be more careful about how I do that and in the language that I choose.
cont..
#RaynerApologises!
I think that's quite a touching statement. She could have perfunctorily apologised for "any offence caused" or similar half-apologies, but she's clearly thought it through.
Facebook changes its name to Meta in major rebrand
This is the sort of stuff (*) I dislike. 'meta' is a word with a known meaning. It has a definition. Facebook renaming itself is going to lead to them subsuming a perfectly good word - and one embedded within most webpages.
Google renaming itself 'Alphabet' was bad enough - although that was the umbrella organisation.
Still, at least Facebook has started to realise how toxic its own brand is becoming.
(*) I'd say something stronger, but I have two seven year old boys staring over my shoulder... Hi, Alastair! Hi, Robert!
That’s a nobly expressed apology from Rayner. Creditable
Yes it is. Elegant even. But do you believe that she - dunno - misspoke? - and doesn't in fact believe that some Tory MPs and some Tory voters are scum?
It doesn't matter what she believes. We don't have thought crimes.
What's important is that she doesn't use her very prominent position to incite hatred.
If this has made her even a little more congenial towards her parliamentary opponents, and in future she remembers to go for the ball and not the man, it could have an influence on her supporters and do a bit to make politics nicer.
You think unspoken beliefs don't matter? They drive motivation and intent. You are working with an extreme utilitarianism right there.
They don't matter to me.
And they matter far less to politics than her words and actions.
Indeed.
Thinking horrible things is not illegal for instance, but acting on them often is. I would rather know what someone thinks even if it is horrible, but it is not as important as what they do.
So, is it an admission the Facebook brand is tainted?
Or that Zuckerbergh has reached that stage of the overpowerful individual where he thinks his gimmicky whims are genius ideas?
Or part of some dodgy manuevere to evade responsibility for something?
From what I can see on the BBC article, there isn't much in it. Facebook the social media platform still remains as it is. They are just changing the name of the umbrella company that owns all sorts of other apps etc from Facebook to Meta, in the same way that google changed its name to alphabet a few years ago.
So, is it an admission the Facebook brand is tainted?
Or that Zuckerbergh has reached that stage of the overpowerful individual where he thinks his gimmicky whims are genius ideas?
Or part of some dodgy manuevere to evade responsibility for something?
Meta is going to be the umbrella company, with Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp continuing as brands. A bit like Alphabet and Google, I suppose.
I don't use Facebook or Instagram, but WhatsApp is rather good at work because of its encryption.
I’m staying in a very plez boutique hotel on the Alentejano coast. As soon as I checked in they asked if I minded using WhatsApp. I said no, and now they communicate with me via that. They gave me all those details you forget as you are shown to your room - breakfast times, Wi-Fi password, parking and dining. Now they send me daily recommendations for food and sightseeing and shopping, and they respond to my questions likewise. It’s very clever and simple and obvious. Of course this is the way to do it
Why don’t all hotels do this?
I like WhatsApp, I just wish it wasn’t owned by ‘Meta’
I watched a short video series about early 20th century anti trust actions, and was struck by the notion that part of it is not just dominance but the impenetrability of corporate structures and practices in a way normal people have no way of following. I know renaming yourself is not really that, but it does feel as a peon that it cannot possibly be the case that all huge corporations need to be so bafflingly obtuse about everything by nature.
There's a game in perpetual Alpha called 'Star Citizen'. It's rather well-known for having raised over $350 million by selling concept art that might, one day, appear in a game. Its corporate structure seems rather arcane at times, with loads of companies. It has studios in Germany, the US and UK, so it cannot rally have a simple structure, bit even then it seems to have a rather obtuse and weird one, with changing companies, ones becoming defunct and new ones being formed.
Many people are suspicious about why this may be, and whether it has anything to do with the vast sums raised from gullible fools keen gamers ...
That’s a nobly expressed apology from Rayner. Creditable
Yes it is. Elegant even. But do you believe that she - dunno - misspoke? - and doesn't in fact believe that some Tory MPs and some Tory voters are scum?
It doesn't matter what she believes. We don't have thought crimes.
What's important is that she doesn't use her very prominent position to incite hatred.
If this has made her even a little more congenial towards her parliamentary opponents, and in future she remembers to go for the ball and not the man, it could have an influence on her supporters and do a bit to make politics nicer.
You think unspoken beliefs don't matter? They drive motivation and intent. You are working with an extreme utilitarianism right there.
They don't matter to me.
And they matter far less to politics than her words and actions.
Indeed.
Thinking horrible things is not illegal for instance, but acting on them often is. I would rather know what someone thinks even if it is horrible, but it is not as important as what they do.
If everyone knew what everyone else thought at all times, no one would have any friends or family, I fear.
A friend of mine was in Westminster in the Eighties in a downpour getting drenched, when a man hailed a taxi. He invited her in to share the taxi and dropped her off on the way, after a pleasant chat. It was Tony Benn, and she became quite a convert.
I once literally bumped into Harold Wilson as an old man in Westminster about the same time. He was very frail looking, but fortunately no injury.
A coincidence. I also bumped into HW at Euston Station looking bewilldered. I thought I'd get him to sign a BR ticket but I couldn't remember whether he was a Lord a Sir or a Mr. But he didn't look in great condition so he possibly didn't know either.
But I personally think a bigger issue remains. Labour consider themselves morally superior and they allow a culture of hatred towards the Tories to exist. The leadership do more to put a stop to it. You never know, it might make them more electable too.
That’s a nobly expressed apology from Rayner. Creditable
Yes it is. Elegant even. But do you believe that she - dunno - misspoke? - and doesn't in fact believe that some Tory MPs and some Tory voters are scum?
I got the impression she was Speaking more to play to her supporter base in labour than anything else. Whether or not she believes it, they certainly do.
No doubt she'll be getting it in the neck from some of that base who will now see her as a traitor etc for apologizing.
Maybe not - a remarkable thing about Corbyn was how even if he said something rolling back on something some of his most ardent followers might still defend the initial position.
So IIRC he claimed he didn't look closely enough at that mural for instance and regretted his action as a result, implicitly accepting the criticisms of its offensiveness, but plenty of his supporters continued to defend him on the basis that there was nothing wrong with it at all, and might even have suggested that was the position he still held despite his words.
Facebook changes its name to Meta in major rebrand
This is the sort of stuff (*) I dislike. 'meta' is a word with a known meaning. It has a definition. Facebook renaming itself is going to lead to them subsuming a perfectly good word - and one embedded within most webpages.
Google renaming itself 'Alphabet' was bad enough - although that was the umbrella organisation.
Still, at least Facebook has started to realise how toxic its own brand is becoming.
(*) I'd say something stronger, but I have two seven year old boys staring over my shoulder... Hi, Alastair! Hi, Robert!
I watched a short video series about early 20th century anti trust actions, and was struck by the notion that part of it is not just dominance but the impenetrability of corporate structures and practices in a way normal people have no way of following. I know renaming yourself is not really that, but it does feel as a peon that it cannot possibly be the case that all huge corporations need to be so bafflingly obtuse about everything by nature.
There's a game in perpetual Alpha called 'Star Citizen'. It's rather well-known for having raised over $350 million by selling concept art that might, one day, appear in a game. Its corporate structure seems rather arcane at times, with loads of companies. It has studios in Germany, the US and UK, so it cannot rally have a simple structure, bit even then it seems to have a rather obtuse and weird one, with changing companies, ones becoming defunct and new ones being formed.
Many people are suspicious about why this may be, and whether it has anything to do with the vast sums raised from gullible fools keen gamers ...
Yes, I backed that in its initial fund raising (it's worked fine for things like Pillars of Eternity or Darkest Dungeon!) of a couple million, but though there's plenty of failed projects which should never have crowdfunded so much, quite why Star Citizen took off to such an absurd degree is baffling.
But I personally think a bigger issue remains. Labour consider themselves morally superior and they allow a culture of hatred towards the Tories to exist. The leadership do more to put a stop to it. You never know, it might make them more electable too.
Yes
Remember Hillary’s ‘deplorables’ remark. A polite version of Rayner’s ‘scum’. Given the closeness of the election, it possibly cost her the presidency
Trains: I had a really very good Vichyssoise on the way to Exeter once.
I had a truly foul currywurst on the TEE from Paris to Berlin. Comfy sleeper car though.
I did the sleeper from Mombassa to Nairobi on my honeymoon. A bit shabby but still using the East Africa Railways china and cutlery. The waiter refused to omit courses in the dining car. The soup and fish courses were compulsory. It was an echo of the old Imperial days, and arriving in Nairobi was first through a game park, and then lots of 1950s steam trains rusting. Not expensive then, or tarted up nostalgia, just genuine old stuff wheezing it's way across Africa.
But I personally think a bigger issue remains. Labour consider themselves morally superior and they allow a culture of hatred towards the Tories to exist. The leadership do more to put a stop to it. You never know, it might make them more electable too.
Yes
Remember Hillary’s ‘deplorables’ remark. A polite version of Rayner’s ‘scum’. Given the closeness of the election, it possibly cost her the presidency
In 2018 I met some crusty Republicans at a BBQ in North London and they were still riled up by the “deplorables” tag.
Facebook changes its name to Meta in major rebrand
This is the sort of stuff (*) I dislike. 'meta' is a word with a known meaning. It has a definition. Facebook renaming itself is going to lead to them subsuming a perfectly good word - and one embedded within most webpages.
Google renaming itself 'Alphabet' was bad enough - although that was the umbrella organisation.
Still, at least Facebook has started to realise how toxic its own brand is becoming.
(*) I'd say something stronger, but I have two seven year old boys staring over my shoulder... Hi, Alastair! Hi, Robert!
Meta is the umbrella name not the platform too.
Thanks. IMV it's a terrible name change, and one that's far worse than 'Alphabet'.
"We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile [inaudible] Banana Republic, vile, nasty, Etonian [inaudible] piece of scum.”
This from a 41 year old, deputy leader of the labour party.
The fact that she has been advised that it would be prudent to backtrack and reposition herself, doesn't justify the full on brown nosing ceremony unfolding here.
So, is it an admission the Facebook brand is tainted?
Or that Zuckerbergh has reached that stage of the overpowerful individual where he thinks his gimmicky whims are genius ideas?
Or part of some dodgy manuevere to evade responsibility for something?
Meta is going to be the umbrella company, with Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp continuing as brands. A bit like Alphabet and Google, I suppose.
I don't use Facebook or Instagram, but WhatsApp is rather good at work because of its encryption.
I’m staying in a very plez boutique hotel on the Alentejano coast. As soon as I checked in they asked if I minded using WhatsApp. I said no, and now they communicate with me via that. They gave me all those details you forget as you are shown to your room - breakfast times, Wi-Fi password, parking and dining. Now they send me daily recommendations for food and sightseeing and shopping, and they respond to my questions likewise. It’s very clever and simple and obvious. Of course this is the way to do it
Why don’t all hotels do this?
I like WhatsApp, I just wish it wasn’t owned by ‘Meta’
If government ministers can conduct confidential business on it to avoid scrutiny it doesn't seem beyond the wit of a hotel chain to make use of it.
Trains: I had a really very good Vichyssoise on the way to Exeter once.
I had a truly foul currywurst on the TEE from Paris to Berlin. Comfy sleeper car though.
I did the sleeper from Mombassa to Nairobi on my honeymoon. A bit shabby but still using the East Africa Railways china and cutlery. The waiter refused to omit courses in the dining car. The soup and fish courses were compulsory. It was an echo of the old Imperial days, and arriving in Nairobi was first through a game park, and then lots of 1950s steam trains rusting. Not expensive then, or tarted up nostalgia, just genuine old stuff wheezing it's way across Africa.
A friend of mine was in Westminster in the Eighties in a downpour getting drenched, when a man hailed a taxi. He invited her in to share the taxi and dropped her off on the way, after a pleasant chat. It was Tony Benn, and she became quite a convert.
I once literally bumped into Harold Wilson as an old man in Westminster about the same time. He was very frail looking, but fortunately no injury.
A coincidence. I also bumped into HW at Euston Station looking bewilldered. I thought I'd get him to sign a BR ticket but I couldn't remember whether he was a Lord a Sir or a Mr. But he didn't look in great condition so he possibly didn't know either.
Bumped into Willie Whitelaw and Alec Douglas Home in Jermyn Street one afternoon in the late 80s. Both retired, they had evidently enjoyed a good lunch. I was surprised how tall ADH was, even as an octogenarian.
"We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile [inaudible] Banana Republic, vile, nasty, Etonian [inaudible] piece of scum.”
This from a 41 year old, deputy leader of the labour party.
The fact that she has been advised that it would be prudent to backtrack and reposition herself, doesn't justify the full on brown nosing ceremony unfolding here.
I think you are misreading the sentiment. She shouldn't have said it. She has now acknowledged she should not have said it. I think it reasonable to praise people who admit they were wrong, particularly relating to their own behaviour when partisan feeling would protect them from needing to do so.
However, should she not live up to her apology she will face far greater criticism in future. That's not brown nosing, it's giving her a chance for having admitted to an error.
A friend of mine was in Westminster in the Eighties in a downpour getting drenched, when a man hailed a taxi. He invited her in to share the taxi and dropped her off on the way, after a pleasant chat. It was Tony Benn, and she became quite a convert.
I once literally bumped into Harold Wilson as an old man in Westminster about the same time. He was very frail looking, but fortunately no injury.
A coincidence. I also bumped into HW at Euston Station looking bewilldered. I thought I'd get him to sign a BR ticket but I couldn't remember whether he was a Lord a Sir or a Mr. But he didn't look in great condition so he possibly didn't know either.
That was back in the Eighties. There was no noticeable security. Mind you, in those days you could walk up to number 10 and get a picture taken, and no one seemed bothered.
"We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile [inaudible] Banana Republic, vile, nasty, Etonian [inaudible] piece of scum.”
This from a 41 year old, deputy leader of the labour party.
The fact that she has been advised that it would be prudent to backtrack and reposition herself, doesn't justify the full on brown nosing ceremony unfolding here.
So it's a "gratuitous insult" when the British ask to speak to the French Ambassador, but not when the French Europe Minister threatens power supplies to the British Isles?
Anglo-French relations are in the worst shape in decades, and this gratuitous insult will hardly help. Diplomacy is best done in private. The rest is public relations.
This is a good speech by Biden. Wealthy people should pay their fair share of tax.
I agree!
How does he define “wealthy” and “fair share”?
A good test of a supposedly interesting point is: can the opposite ever be intelligently expressed?
So, who would ever say ‘the wealthy should NOT pay their fair share of tax’?
No one. Biden’s is a statement of the bleeding obvious
But that's the essence of what passes for modern political debate. You state something completely obvious that no-one could object to, assert that your policy is indispensable in furthering that aim, thereby implying that any criticism could only possibly come from people so unhinged and dangerous that you shouldn't even listen to them let alone vote for them. Sunak's budget speech was stuffed to the gills with it and it's been the bread and butter of British political debate for as long as I can remember (~ late-Major).
Indeed that actually qualifies as a high level of political debate these days, in contrast to the shitposting or the fascism.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
"We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile [inaudible] Banana Republic, vile, nasty, Etonian [inaudible] piece of scum.”
This from a 41 year old, deputy leader of the labour party.
The fact that she has been advised that it would be prudent to backtrack and reposition herself, doesn't justify the full on brown nosing ceremony unfolding here.
I think you are misreading the sentiment. She shouldn't have said it. She has now acknowledged she should not have said it. I think it reasonable to praise people who admit they were wrong, particularly relating to their own behaviour when partisan feeling would protect them from needing to do so.
However, should she not live up to her apology she will face far greater criticism in future. That's not brown nosing, it's giving her a chance for having admitted to an error.
This is the most daft post I have ever seen on PB.
So it's a "gratuitous insult" when the British ask to speak to the French Ambassador, but not when the French Europe Minister threatens power supplies to the British Isles?
Anglo-French relations are in the worst shape in decades, and this gratuitous insult will hardly help. Diplomacy is best done in private. The rest is public relations.
So it's a "gratuitous insult" when the British ask to speak to the French Ambassador, but not when the French Europe Minister threatens power supplies to the British Isles?
Anglo-French relations are in the worst shape in decades, and this gratuitous insult will hardly help. Diplomacy is best done in private. The rest is public relations.
I must be misremembering all those oh so hilarious public snipes back and forth from the sides in the Brexit negotiations, about cherry picking or not understanding things, and coded insults. I am sure I remember that all being sensible diplomacy and not childish gameplaying by the negotiating teams and their backers.
Trains: I had a really very good Vichyssoise on the way to Exeter once.
I had a truly foul currywurst on the TEE from Paris to Berlin. Comfy sleeper car though.
I did the sleeper from Mombassa to Nairobi on my honeymoon. A bit shabby but still using the East Africa Railways china and cutlery. The waiter refused to omit courses in the dining car. The soup and fish courses were compulsory. It was an echo of the old Imperial days, and arriving in Nairobi was first through a game park, and then lots of 1950s steam trains rusting. Not expensive then, or tarted up nostalgia, just genuine old stuff wheezing it's way across Africa.
I loved "the lunatic line" - and the food seemed totally inappropriate until someone explained to me that steamed pudding and custard (to round off stew and soup) was appropriate carbohydrate loading to mitigate against dehydration....
A friend of mine was in Westminster in the Eighties in a downpour getting drenched, when a man hailed a taxi. He invited her in to share the taxi and dropped her off on the way, after a pleasant chat. It was Tony Benn, and she became quite a convert.
I once literally bumped into Harold Wilson as an old man in Westminster about the same time. He was very frail looking, but fortunately no injury.
A coincidence. I also bumped into HW at Euston Station looking bewilldered. I thought I'd get him to sign a BR ticket but I couldn't remember whether he was a Lord a Sir or a Mr. But he didn't look in great condition so he possibly didn't know either.
That was back in the Eighties. There was no noticeable security. Mind you, in those days you could walk up to number 10 and get a picture taken, and no one seemed bothered.
Good way to impress a date. Dinner at the ICA, stroll along Downing Street, huddle together for warmth on Hungerford Bridge...
Met Leon Brittain in St James' Park, (London not the home of the Toon). Said Hello Mr Brittain. Looked at me as though I was something he'd stepped in. Norman Tebbit, by contrast, was a lovely, warm individual, who strongly disagreed with me, but was super nice about it. I frequently see Alan Milburn out and about. Quiet but pleasant enough.
"We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile [inaudible] Banana Republic, vile, nasty, Etonian [inaudible] piece of scum.”
This from a 41 year old, deputy leader of the labour party.
The fact that she has been advised that it would be prudent to backtrack and reposition herself, doesn't justify the full on brown nosing ceremony unfolding here.
I think you are misreading the sentiment. She shouldn't have said it. She has now acknowledged she should not have said it. I think it reasonable to praise people who admit they were wrong, particularly relating to their own behaviour when partisan feeling would protect them from needing to do so.
However, should she not live up to her apology she will face far greater criticism in future. That's not brown nosing, it's giving her a chance for having admitted to an error.
This is the most daft post I have ever seen on PB.
I watched a short video series about early 20th century anti trust actions, and was struck by the notion that part of it is not just dominance but the impenetrability of corporate structures and practices in a way normal people have no way of following. I know renaming yourself is not really that, but it does feel as a peon that it cannot possibly be the case that all huge corporations need to be so bafflingly obtuse about everything by nature.
There's a game in perpetual Alpha called 'Star Citizen'. It's rather well-known for having raised over $350 million by selling concept art that might, one day, appear in a game. Its corporate structure seems rather arcane at times, with loads of companies. It has studios in Germany, the US and UK, so it cannot rally have a simple structure, bit even then it seems to have a rather obtuse and weird one, with changing companies, ones becoming defunct and new ones being formed.
Many people are suspicious about why this may be, and whether it has anything to do with the vast sums raised from gullible fools keen gamers ...
Yes, I backed that in its initial fund raising (it's worked fine for things like Pillars of Eternity or Darkest Dungeon!) of a couple million, but though there's plenty of failed projects which should never have crowdfunded so much, quite why Star Citizen took off to such an absurd degree is baffling.
As a matter of interest, do you think you got your money's worth? They've released *something*; it's just nowhere near what they promised in their kickstarter.
"We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile [inaudible] Banana Republic, vile, nasty, Etonian [inaudible] piece of scum.”
This from a 41 year old, deputy leader of the labour party.
The fact that she has been advised that it would be prudent to backtrack and reposition herself, doesn't justify the full on brown nosing ceremony unfolding here.
I think you are misreading the sentiment. She shouldn't have said it. She has now acknowledged she should not have said it. I think it reasonable to praise people who admit they were wrong, particularly relating to their own behaviour when partisan feeling would protect them from needing to do so.
However, should she not live up to her apology she will face far greater criticism in future. That's not brown nosing, it's giving her a chance for having admitted to an error.
This is the most daft post I have ever seen on PB.
Each to their own, but I am curious how it reached that height in your eyes. I am confident I alone have written much dafter than that just this evening.
All it is saying is give people a chance if they apologise, and if they still behave poorly it'll look even worse for them for going back on their apology.
So it's a "gratuitous insult" when the British ask to speak to the French Ambassador, but not when the French Europe Minister threatens power supplies to the British Isles?
Anglo-French relations are in the worst shape in decades, and this gratuitous insult will hardly help. Diplomacy is best done in private. The rest is public relations.
I suggested this morning that the British should torpedo a French fishing boat, so I don’t want to be accused of resisting a hard line.
But the message of Truss’s email is sneering contempt and I don’t think it helps.
Sneering contempt is what the French deserve for how they've been acting.
If the French wanted diplomacy done in public, they shouldn't have started doing it in public yesterday. If Truss didn't say anything in public then those criticising her for speaking would criticise her for being AWOL.
I watched a short video series about early 20th century anti trust actions, and was struck by the notion that part of it is not just dominance but the impenetrability of corporate structures and practices in a way normal people have no way of following. I know renaming yourself is not really that, but it does feel as a peon that it cannot possibly be the case that all huge corporations need to be so bafflingly obtuse about everything by nature.
There's a game in perpetual Alpha called 'Star Citizen'. It's rather well-known for having raised over $350 million by selling concept art that might, one day, appear in a game. Its corporate structure seems rather arcane at times, with loads of companies. It has studios in Germany, the US and UK, so it cannot rally have a simple structure, bit even then it seems to have a rather obtuse and weird one, with changing companies, ones becoming defunct and new ones being formed.
Many people are suspicious about why this may be, and whether it has anything to do with the vast sums raised from gullible fools keen gamers ...
Yes, I backed that in its initial fund raising (it's worked fine for things like Pillars of Eternity or Darkest Dungeon!) of a couple million, but though there's plenty of failed projects which should never have crowdfunded so much, quite why Star Citizen took off to such an absurd degree is baffling.
As a matter of interest, do you think you got your money's worth? They've released *something*; it's just nowhere near what they promised in their kickstarter.
No I did not, but that's the gamble with Kickstarter and the like. It was right around the time several big video game projects first got going so there was a bit of a crowdfunding bubble.
Just looking at some of the French run-off polling scenarios from earlier.
Marine Le Pen gets 45% in a run off with Macron while Bertrand gets 46% and does best of any of the contenders which should encourage those who see him as a plausible LR candidate.
Zemmour, Pecresse, Barnier and Melanchon all lose badly to Macron and it's worth pointing out none of the opposing candidates are shown ahead of Macron in a run off at this time.
"We cannot get any worse than a bunch of scum, homophobic, racist, misogynistic, absolute vile [inaudible] Banana Republic, vile, nasty, Etonian [inaudible] piece of scum.”
This from a 41 year old, deputy leader of the labour party.
The fact that she has been advised that it would be prudent to backtrack and reposition herself, doesn't justify the full on brown nosing ceremony unfolding here.
I think you are misreading the sentiment. She shouldn't have said it. She has now acknowledged she should not have said it. I think it reasonable to praise people who admit they were wrong, particularly relating to their own behaviour when partisan feeling would protect them from needing to do so.
However, should she not live up to her apology she will face far greater criticism in future. That's not brown nosing, it's giving her a chance for having admitted to an error.
This is the most daft post I have ever seen on PB.
So it's a "gratuitous insult" when the British ask to speak to the French Ambassador, but not when the French Europe Minister threatens power supplies to the British Isles?
Anglo-French relations are in the worst shape in decades, and this gratuitous insult will hardly help. Diplomacy is best done in private. The rest is public relations.
I suggested this morning that the British should torpedo a French fishing boat, so I don’t want to be accused of resisting a hard line.
But the message of Truss’s email is sneering contempt and I don’t think it helps.
Sneering contempt is what the French deserve for how they've been acting.
If the French wanted diplomacy done in public, they shouldn't have started doing it in public yesterday. If Truss didn't say anything in public then those criticising her for speaking would criticise her for being AWOL.
To be more specific, I think Truss should just have said “I am summoning the ambassador…”
The bit about ordering her minister to do it is a bit girl’s high school and pathetic.
Both have their time and place - it's possible to fly direct to San Diego (one of my favourite cities) but it's also enjoyable to fly to LA, take the shuttle to Union Station and ride the Pacific Surfliner down to the Old Town Station where the hotel limo is waiting to whisk you off to Mission Beach.
In the UK, it's a mixed bag - Edinburgh by train can be very pleasant or purgatory - in the pre-Covid times, my proximity to City Airport made a lot of European cities very accessible by plane. I've done day trips to York and Southwell for race meetings and they've been decent.
However, try flying to Penzance and see how far you get - the train journey on a GWR service in First Class is one of life's pleasures. In former days, they'd serve a Pullman lunch (second sitting for those going beyond Plymouth) and very reasonable it was too. I see they've resumed helicopter flights to the Scillies - that's the only way to travel to the islands. Get an early flight, breakfast in St Mary's and then take the ferry to St Martin for lunch.
I digress...
The extent of my "business travel" these days is Oxford or Winchester and getting to either on the train is very reasonable.
I love long-haul flying and most long-distance train travel though the notion of the Trans-Siberian does nothing for me at all. I remember seeing the old Soviet and East German sleeping cars at Ostend when I got off the jetfoil from Dover in the 1980s. That train was one of those which had different bits going to and from different countries but it was possible to travel through from Ostend to East Berlin and Moscow (I never did).
Most modern day European train stock is very sleek and comfortable - I believe Czech trains in particular are very good. Swiss trains are wonderful and the Glacier Express is on my bucket list.
In my experience, trains are okay for up to about 6 hours. Much depends on the comfort level and how busy they are. The voyager and pendolino trains (used by avanti and crosscountry) are grim in standard class. They never seem to have fixed the ventilation problem, meaning the carriages smell vaguely of sewage; and the seats are too small meaning it is very cramped and uncomfortable.
The sleeper trains in the UK are not brilliant, sleeping on the caledonian sleeper even after the expensive new trains was like trying to sleep on top of a washing machine.
Scandinavia has the best trains in the world in my experience (for instance there is a playground carriage on some of the intercity trains) but very unchanging scenery; Tampere to Oulu in Finland was basically 6 hours of the same woodland.
I've done Stockholm-London a couple of times, including the (now discontinued) Rodby-Puttgarden train ferry. However, the trains were totally overcrowded and miserable in Denmark and Germany, even travelling in first class.
So it's a "gratuitous insult" when the British ask to speak to the French Ambassador, but not when the French Europe Minister threatens power supplies to the British Isles?
Anglo-French relations are in the worst shape in decades, and this gratuitous insult will hardly help. Diplomacy is best done in private. The rest is public relations.
I suggested this morning that the British should torpedo a French fishing boat, so I don’t want to be accused of resisting a hard line.
But the message of Truss’s email is sneering contempt and I don’t think it helps.
Sneering contempt is what the French deserve for how they've been acting.
If the French wanted diplomacy done in public, they shouldn't have started doing it in public yesterday. If Truss didn't say anything in public then those criticising her for speaking would criticise her for being AWOL.
To be more specific, I think Truss should just have said “I am summoning the ambassador…”
The bit about ordering her minister to do it is a bit girl’s high school and pathetic.
Not really. She said instructing not ordering, which is a perfectly reasonable word to use.
Plus there's an interesting element there that she's not the one summoning the ambassador, she's instructed her subordinate to do it. So that sends out the message that the French ambassador isn't even worthy of her seeing, which is a proportionate diplomatic insult in response to how they've been behaving.
So it's a "gratuitous insult" when the British ask to speak to the French Ambassador, but not when the French Europe Minister threatens power supplies to the British Isles?
Anglo-French relations are in the worst shape in decades, and this gratuitous insult will hardly help. Diplomacy is best done in private. The rest is public relations.
I suggested this morning that the British should torpedo a French fishing boat, so I don’t want to be accused of resisting a hard line.
But the message of Truss’s email is sneering contempt and I don’t think it helps.
Sneering contempt is what the French deserve for how they've been acting.
If the French wanted diplomacy done in public, they shouldn't have started doing it in public yesterday. If Truss didn't say anything in public then those criticising her for speaking would criticise her for being AWOL.
To be more specific, I think Truss should just have said “I am summoning the ambassador…”
The bit about ordering her minister to do it is a bit girl’s high school and pathetic.
Not really. She said instructing not ordering, which is a perfectly reasonable word to use.
Plus there's an interesting element there that she's not the one summoning the ambassador, she's instructed her subordinate to do it. So that sends out the message that the French ambassador isn't even worthy of her seeing, which is a proportionate diplomatic insult in response to how they've been behaving.
That’s my point. It’s catty and demeaning - to the French, but also to her (and by extension us).
So it's a "gratuitous insult" when the British ask to speak to the French Ambassador, but not when the French Europe Minister threatens power supplies to the British Isles?
Anglo-French relations are in the worst shape in decades, and this gratuitous insult will hardly help. Diplomacy is best done in private. The rest is public relations.
I suggested this morning that the British should torpedo a French fishing boat, so I don’t want to be accused of resisting a hard line.
But the message of Truss’s email is sneering contempt and I don’t think it helps.
I think the Truss was desperate to remind everyone that she still exists as hitherto (for reasons unclear) it was Frosty who was sounding off at the French left, right and centre. Probably too late though - Rishi has already made significant advances.
Both have their time and place - it's possible to fly direct to San Diego (one of my favourite cities) but it's also enjoyable to fly to LA, take the shuttle to Union Station and ride the Pacific Surfliner down to the Old Town Station where the hotel limo is waiting to whisk you off to Mission Beach.
In the UK, it's a mixed bag - Edinburgh by train can be very pleasant or purgatory - in the pre-Covid times, my proximity to City Airport made a lot of European cities very accessible by plane. I've done day trips to York and Southwell for race meetings and they've been decent.
However, try flying to Penzance and see how far you get - the train journey on a GWR service in First Class is one of life's pleasures. In former days, they'd serve a Pullman lunch (second sitting for those going beyond Plymouth) and very reasonable it was too. I see they've resumed helicopter flights to the Scillies - that's the only way to travel to the islands. Get an early flight, breakfast in St Mary's and then take the ferry to St Martin for lunch.
I digress...
The extent of my "business travel" these days is Oxford or Winchester and getting to either on the train is very reasonable.
I love long-haul flying and most long-distance train travel though the notion of the Trans-Siberian does nothing for me at all. I remember seeing the old Soviet and East German sleeping cars at Ostend when I got off the jetfoil from Dover in the 1980s. That train was one of those which had different bits going to and from different countries but it was possible to travel through from Ostend to East Berlin and Moscow (I never did).
Most modern day European train stock is very sleek and comfortable - I believe Czech trains in particular are very good. Swiss trains are wonderful and the Glacier Express is on my bucket list.
In my experience, trains are okay for up to about 6 hours. Much depends on the comfort level and how busy they are. The voyager and pendolino trains (used by avanti and crosscountry) are grim in standard class. They never seem to have fixed the ventilation problem, meaning the carriages smell vaguely of sewage; and the seats are too small meaning it is very cramped and uncomfortable.
The sleeper trains in the UK are not brilliant, sleeping on the caledonian sleeper even after the expensive new trains was like trying to sleep on top of a washing machine.
Scandinavia has the best trains in the world in my experience (for instance there is a playground carriage on some of the intercity trains) but very unchanging scenery; Tampere to Oulu in Finland was basically 6 hours of the same woodland.
I've done Stockholm-London a couple of times, including the (now discontinued) Rodby-Puttgarden train ferry. However, the trains were totally overcrowded and miserable in Denmark and Germany, even travelling in first class.
Anyhoo, I've resigned my membership of Yorkshire County Cricket Club.
What a fiasco.
Azeem Rafiq has accused Yorkshire of protecting their staff after the county said it will take no disciplinary action against any of its employees, players or executives following an independent report on allegations of racism.
The former Yorkshire player reacted angrily in the wake of the club’s announcement on Thursday their internal investigation had concluded “there is no conduct or action taken by any of its employees, players or executives that warrants disciplinary action”.
Writing on Twitter, Rafiq said: “Wow just when you think this club couldn’t get more embarrassing you find a way. Still awaiting the FULL report. Thanks for mentioning the people that have provided your PROTECTION & given green light to RACISM.”
Yorkshire released a summarised version of their report on 10 September, apologising and accepting Rafiq had been a victim of “racial harassment and bullying” in his two spells at the club between 2008 and 2018.
A spokesperson for Rafiq said: “We note the statement released by Yorkshire County Cricket Club today. As ever, we will take time to fully respond. However, we do also note that the club has come to the conclusion that no employees, players or executives will face disciplinary action. This is despite Yorkshire County Cricket Club’s admission that Azeem was the victim of racial harassment and bullying. This is despite Yorkshire County Cricket Club’s admission that it failed to follow its own policy and investigate allegations of racism as recently as 2018.
“It is inconceivable that there are no current employees who should not have been disciplined for their conduct. Yorkshire’s failures continue to mount up and it is time that board members – for once – do the decent thing and resign.”
Lancashire and Yorkshire were the last two counties to hold out against allowing women into their pavillions. Bizarrely as it seems now the debate went on for years.
So it's a "gratuitous insult" when the British ask to speak to the French Ambassador, but not when the French Europe Minister threatens power supplies to the British Isles?
Anglo-French relations are in the worst shape in decades, and this gratuitous insult will hardly help. Diplomacy is best done in private. The rest is public relations.
I suggested this morning that the British should torpedo a French fishing boat, so I don’t want to be accused of resisting a hard line.
But the message of Truss’s email is sneering contempt and I don’t think it helps.
Sneering contempt is what the French deserve for how they've been acting.
If the French wanted diplomacy done in public, they shouldn't have started doing it in public yesterday. If Truss didn't say anything in public then those criticising her for speaking would criticise her for being AWOL.
To be more specific, I think Truss should just have said “I am summoning the ambassador…”
The bit about ordering her minister to do it is a bit girl’s high school and pathetic.
Not really. She said instructing not ordering, which is a perfectly reasonable word to use.
Plus there's an interesting element there that she's not the one summoning the ambassador, she's instructed her subordinate to do it. So that sends out the message that the French ambassador isn't even worthy of her seeing, which is a proportionate diplomatic insult in response to how they've been behaving.
That’s my point. It’s catty and demeaning - to the French, but also to her (and by extension us).
Its neither, its diplomacy.
A bit like the French publicly recalling the US and Australian ambassadors but not ours post AUKUS. That was a rather petty deliberate diplomatic sleight to all 3 nations. But that's how diplomacy works, the French have been insulting the UK and now our Foreign Secretary has politely and diplomatically returned the favour.
So it's a "gratuitous insult" when the British ask to speak to the French Ambassador, but not when the French Europe Minister threatens power supplies to the British Isles?
Anglo-French relations are in the worst shape in decades, and this gratuitous insult will hardly help. Diplomacy is best done in private. The rest is public relations.
I suggested this morning that the British should torpedo a French fishing boat, so I don’t want to be accused of resisting a hard line.
But the message of Truss’s email is sneering contempt and I don’t think it helps.
Sneering contempt is what the French deserve for how they've been acting.
If the French wanted diplomacy done in public, they shouldn't have started doing it in public yesterday. If Truss didn't say anything in public then those criticising her for speaking would criticise her for being AWOL.
To be more specific, I think Truss should just have said “I am summoning the ambassador…”
The bit about ordering her minister to do it is a bit girl’s high school and pathetic.
Not really. She said instructing not ordering, which is a perfectly reasonable word to use.
Plus there's an interesting element there that she's not the one summoning the ambassador, she's instructed her subordinate to do it. So that sends out the message that the French ambassador isn't even worthy of her seeing, which is a proportionate diplomatic insult in response to how they've been behaving.
That’s my point. It’s catty and demeaning - to the French, but also to her (and by extension us).
Its neither, its diplomacy.
A bit like the French publicly recalling the US and Australian ambassadors but not ours post AUKUS. That was a rather petty deliberate diplomatic sleight to all 3 nations. But that's how diplomacy works, the French have been insulting the UK and now our Foreign Secretary has politely and diplomatically returned the favour.
Yes, but that’s the French. They do that dumb shit. It’s a sign of insecurity, really.
Anyhoo, I've resigned my membership of Yorkshire County Cricket Club.
What a fiasco.
Azeem Rafiq has accused Yorkshire of protecting their staff after the county said it will take no disciplinary action against any of its employees, players or executives following an independent report on allegations of racism.
The former Yorkshire player reacted angrily in the wake of the club’s announcement on Thursday their internal investigation had concluded “there is no conduct or action taken by any of its employees, players or executives that warrants disciplinary action”.
Writing on Twitter, Rafiq said: “Wow just when you think this club couldn’t get more embarrassing you find a way. Still awaiting the FULL report. Thanks for mentioning the people that have provided your PROTECTION & given green light to RACISM.”
Yorkshire released a summarised version of their report on 10 September, apologising and accepting Rafiq had been a victim of “racial harassment and bullying” in his two spells at the club between 2008 and 2018.
A spokesperson for Rafiq said: “We note the statement released by Yorkshire County Cricket Club today. As ever, we will take time to fully respond. However, we do also note that the club has come to the conclusion that no employees, players or executives will face disciplinary action. This is despite Yorkshire County Cricket Club’s admission that Azeem was the victim of racial harassment and bullying. This is despite Yorkshire County Cricket Club’s admission that it failed to follow its own policy and investigate allegations of racism as recently as 2018.
“It is inconceivable that there are no current employees who should not have been disciplined for their conduct. Yorkshire’s failures continue to mount up and it is time that board members – for once – do the decent thing and resign.”
Lancashire and Yorkshire were the last two counties to hold out against allowing women into their pavillions. Bizarrely as it seems now the debate went on for years.
Yorkshire have really made a Mess of this. The victim seems to be treated as a disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind. It’s really poor. Surely they should face some sanction. Loss of a test ?
Both have their time and place - it's possible to fly direct to San Diego (one of my favourite cities) but it's also enjoyable to fly to LA, take the shuttle to Union Station and ride the Pacific Surfliner down to the Old Town Station where the hotel limo is waiting to whisk you off to Mission Beach.
In the UK, it's a mixed bag - Edinburgh by train can be very pleasant or purgatory - in the pre-Covid times, my proximity to City Airport made a lot of European cities very accessible by plane. I've done day trips to York and Southwell for race meetings and they've been decent.
However, try flying to Penzance and see how far you get - the train journey on a GWR service in First Class is one of life's pleasures. In former days, they'd serve a Pullman lunch (second sitting for those going beyond Plymouth) and very reasonable it was too. I see they've resumed helicopter flights to the Scillies - that's the only way to travel to the islands. Get an early flight, breakfast in St Mary's and then take the ferry to St Martin for lunch.
I digress...
The extent of my "business travel" these days is Oxford or Winchester and getting to either on the train is very reasonable.
I love long-haul flying and most long-distance train travel though the notion of the Trans-Siberian does nothing for me at all. I remember seeing the old Soviet and East German sleeping cars at Ostend when I got off the jetfoil from Dover in the 1980s. That train was one of those which had different bits going to and from different countries but it was possible to travel through from Ostend to East Berlin and Moscow (I never did).
Most modern day European train stock is very sleek and comfortable - I believe Czech trains in particular are very good. Swiss trains are wonderful and the Glacier Express is on my bucket list.
In my experience, trains are okay for up to about 6 hours. Much depends on the comfort level and how busy they are. The voyager and pendolino trains (used by avanti and crosscountry) are grim in standard class. They never seem to have fixed the ventilation problem, meaning the carriages smell vaguely of sewage; and the seats are too small meaning it is very cramped and uncomfortable.
The sleeper trains in the UK are not brilliant, sleeping on the caledonian sleeper even after the expensive new trains was like trying to sleep on top of a washing machine.
Scandinavia has the best trains in the world in my experience (for instance there is a playground carriage on some of the intercity trains) but very unchanging scenery; Tampere to Oulu in Finland was basically 6 hours of the same woodland.
I've done Stockholm-London a couple of times, including the (now discontinued) Rodby-Puttgarden train ferry. However, the trains were totally overcrowded and miserable in Denmark and Germany, even travelling in first class.
Oslo to Bergen is peng.
I did night train on the way there, day train on the way back. Both great. The hotel next to the station serves a decent breakfast for a good price if you show your sleeper ticket.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
Both have their time and place - it's possible to fly direct to San Diego (one of my favourite cities) but it's also enjoyable to fly to LA, take the shuttle to Union Station and ride the Pacific Surfliner down to the Old Town Station where the hotel limo is waiting to whisk you off to Mission Beach.
In the UK, it's a mixed bag - Edinburgh by train can be very pleasant or purgatory - in the pre-Covid times, my proximity to City Airport made a lot of European cities very accessible by plane. I've done day trips to York and Southwell for race meetings and they've been decent.
However, try flying to Penzance and see how far you get - the train journey on a GWR service in First Class is one of life's pleasures. In former days, they'd serve a Pullman lunch (second sitting for those going beyond Plymouth) and very reasonable it was too. I see they've resumed helicopter flights to the Scillies - that's the only way to travel to the islands. Get an early flight, breakfast in St Mary's and then take the ferry to St Martin for lunch.
I digress...
The extent of my "business travel" these days is Oxford or Winchester and getting to either on the train is very reasonable.
I love long-haul flying and most long-distance train travel though the notion of the Trans-Siberian does nothing for me at all. I remember seeing the old Soviet and East German sleeping cars at Ostend when I got off the jetfoil from Dover in the 1980s. That train was one of those which had different bits going to and from different countries but it was possible to travel through from Ostend to East Berlin and Moscow (I never did).
Most modern day European train stock is very sleek and comfortable - I believe Czech trains in particular are very good. Swiss trains are wonderful and the Glacier Express is on my bucket list.
In my experience, trains are okay for up to about 6 hours. Much depends on the comfort level and how busy they are. The voyager and pendolino trains (used by avanti and crosscountry) are grim in standard class. They never seem to have fixed the ventilation problem, meaning the carriages smell vaguely of sewage; and the seats are too small meaning it is very cramped and uncomfortable.
The sleeper trains in the UK are not brilliant, sleeping on the caledonian sleeper even after the expensive new trains was like trying to sleep on top of a washing machine.
Scandinavia has the best trains in the world in my experience (for instance there is a playground carriage on some of the intercity trains) but very unchanging scenery; Tampere to Oulu in Finland was basically 6 hours of the same woodland.
I've done Stockholm-London a couple of times, including the (now discontinued) Rodby-Puttgarden train ferry. However, the trains were totally overcrowded and miserable in Denmark and Germany, even travelling in first class.
Oslo to Bergen is peng.
Travelled that journey on our honeymoon in May 1964 and it is just beautiful (as well as my lady wife)
Trains: I had a really very good Vichyssoise on the way to Exeter once.
I had a truly foul currywurst on the TEE from Paris to Berlin. Comfy sleeper car though.
I did the sleeper from Mombassa to Nairobi on my honeymoon. A bit shabby but still using the East Africa Railways china and cutlery. The waiter refused to omit courses in the dining car. The soup and fish courses were compulsory. It was an echo of the old Imperial days, and arriving in Nairobi was first through a game park, and then lots of 1950s steam trains rusting. Not expensive then, or tarted up nostalgia, just genuine old stuff wheezing it's way across Africa.
I loved "the lunatic line" - and the food seemed totally inappropriate until someone explained to me that steamed pudding and custard (to round off stew and soup) was appropriate carbohydrate loading to mitigate against dehydration....
Yes, it was proper old school British stodge, rather than haut cuisine, but it all rather added to the atmosphere.
One little highlight of the trip was befriending our taxi driver, who we did several trips with, out to Naivasha and the like. We treated him to high tea at the Norfolk Hotel* on the terrace, and he in return whispered tales of all the besuited politicians and Wabenzi** around us. I often stay three star, but go to use the public parts of classic old hotels for the atmosphere. The Old Cataract at Aswan, Reid in Funchal, etc.
* sadly closed due to covid, as has the Outspan Hotel in the Aberdares. I don't know if they will re-open.
** Wabenzi: the people who ride in Mercedes Benz, with the implicit suggestion of graft.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I really hope she's had a flood of supportive messages from Tory MPs.
The sleeper trains in the UK are not brilliant, sleeping on the caledonian sleeper even after the expensive new trains was like trying to sleep on top of a washing machine.
Scandinavia has the best trains in the world in my experience (for instance there is a playground carriage on some of the intercity trains) but very unchanging scenery; Tampere to Oulu in Finland was basically 6 hours of the same woodland.
I've done Stockholm-London a couple of times, including the (now discontinued) Rodby-Puttgarden train ferry. However, the trains were totally overcrowded and miserable in Denmark and Germany, even travelling in first class.
I'm going to disagree with you on Sleeper Trains - the Night Riviera to Cornwall is very good especially if you stump the money for first class. You can be in St Ives for breakfast and that's no bad thing.
I've not travelled Scandinavian trains much since the mid-80s. The Swedish trains were the best of the bunch back then.
The sleeper trains in the UK are not brilliant, sleeping on the caledonian sleeper even after the expensive new trains was like trying to sleep on top of a washing machine.
Scandinavia has the best trains in the world in my experience (for instance there is a playground carriage on some of the intercity trains) but very unchanging scenery; Tampere to Oulu in Finland was basically 6 hours of the same woodland.
I've done Stockholm-London a couple of times, including the (now discontinued) Rodby-Puttgarden train ferry. However, the trains were totally overcrowded and miserable in Denmark and Germany, even travelling in first class.
I'm going to disagree with you on Sleeper Trains - the Night Riviera to Cornwall is very good especially if you stump the money for first class. You can be in St Ives for breakfast and that's no bad thing.
I've not travelled Scandinavian trains much since the mid-80s. The Swedish trains were the best of the bunch back then.
Just looking at some of the French run-off polling scenarios from earlier.
Marine Le Pen gets 45% in a run off with Macron while Bertrand gets 46% and does best of any of the contenders which should encourage those who see him as a plausible LR candidate.
Zemmour, Pecresse, Barnier and Melanchon all lose badly to Macron and it's worth pointing out none of the opposing candidates are shown ahead of Macron in a run off at this time.
I recall French polls at the last Presidential election being fairly accurate, perhaps a bit exaggerating of the LePen vote.
As such I have a few quid on Bertrand, as he may scrape through to the final two.
I remember @Chris_from_Paris giving some very good tips that were well worth following. I made £500 on his early Macron tip. I haven't seen him about recently.
The U.S. is in talks to offer immigrant families separated at the border in 2018 about $450,000 a person in compensation, people familiar with the matter say
The sleeper trains in the UK are not brilliant, sleeping on the caledonian sleeper even after the expensive new trains was like trying to sleep on top of a washing machine.
Scandinavia has the best trains in the world in my experience (for instance there is a playground carriage on some of the intercity trains) but very unchanging scenery; Tampere to Oulu in Finland was basically 6 hours of the same woodland.
I've done Stockholm-London a couple of times, including the (now discontinued) Rodby-Puttgarden train ferry. However, the trains were totally overcrowded and miserable in Denmark and Germany, even travelling in first class.
I'm going to disagree with you on Sleeper Trains - the Night Riviera to Cornwall is very good especially if you stump the money for first class. You can be in St Ives for breakfast and that's no bad thing.
I've not travelled Scandinavian trains much since the mid-80s. The Swedish trains were the best of the bunch back then.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
No it isnt. Irrespective of the unpleasantness dished out to her on twitter etc, it is fair coment to point out that she is a nasty piece of work with her deliberate "scum' comments , someone few would trust, me least of all. If Labour ended up with her leader, I would laugh my head off. Part of the unpleasantness against her is of her own making, but the manner of the unpleasantness is unforgiveable.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
No it isnt. Irrespective of the unpleasantness dished out to her on twitter etc, it is fair coment to point out that she is a nasty piece of work with her deliberate "scum' comments , someone few would trust, me least of all. If Labour ended up with her leader, I would laugh my head off. Part of the unpleasantness against her is of her own making, but the manner of the unpleasantness is unforgiveable.
How different is "nasty piece of work" from "scum"?
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
No it isnt. Irrespective of the unpleasantness dished out to her on twitter etc, it is fair coment to point out that she is a nasty piece of work with her deliberate "scum' comments , someone few would trust, me least of all. If Labour ended up with her leader, I would laugh my head off. Part of the unpleasantness against her is of her own making, but the manner of the unpleasantness is unforgiveable.
You are one of - possibly the most - nakedly partisan posters on here. It’s nauseating at times.
Why not give her the benefit of the doubt?
I’m no fan of hers, and didn’t like her original comments, but it’s not clear to me what more she can do than write what is clearly a considered and thoughtful apology.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
I'm going to disagree with you on Sleeper Trains - the Night Riviera to Cornwall is very good especially if you stump the money for first class. You can be in St Ives for breakfast and that's no bad thing.
I've not travelled Scandinavian trains much since the mid-80s. The Swedish trains were the best of the bunch back then.
But then you're in St Ives without a car
Does St Ives not have all you need?
It's a bit of a conundrum. Public transport in West Cornwall is much improved especially in the summer - buses get you to Lands End, Penzance, Truro, Falmouth and the like and a sturdy walk to Zennor or Gwithian is always to be recommended.
The town itself is very walkable if you don't mind some ups and downs such as Skidden Hill.
If you want to visit the more esoteric venues such as Trevaskis Farm, I agree a car is helpful.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
No it isnt. Irrespective of the unpleasantness dished out to her on twitter etc, it is fair coment to point out that she is a nasty piece of work with her deliberate "scum' comments , someone few would trust, me least of all. If Labour ended up with her leader, I would laugh my head off. Part of the unpleasantness against her is of her own making, but the manner of the unpleasantness is unforgiveable.
How different is "nasty piece of work" from "scum"?
Point taken.. perhaps..... very unpleasant person. The rest of my post stands.
I'm going to disagree with you on Sleeper Trains - the Night Riviera to Cornwall is very good especially if you stump the money for first class. You can be in St Ives for breakfast and that's no bad thing.
I've not travelled Scandinavian trains much since the mid-80s. The Swedish trains were the best of the bunch back then.
But then you're in St Ives without a car
Does St Ives not have all you need?
It's a bit of a conundrum. Public transport in West Cornwall is much improved especially in the summer - buses get you to Lands End, Penzance, Truro, Falmouth and the like and a sturdy walk to Zennor or Gwithian is always to be recommended.
The town itself is very walkable if you don't mind some ups and downs such as Skidden Hill.
If you want to visit the more esoteric venues such as Trevaskis Farm, I agree a car is helpful.
As I recall, a car is more trouble than it is worth in St Ives
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
No it isnt. Irrespective of the unpleasantness dished out to her on twitter etc, it is fair coment to point out that she is a nasty piece of work with her deliberate "scum' comments , someone few would trust, me least of all. If Labour ended up with her leader, I would laugh my head off. Part of the unpleasantness against her is of her own making, but the manner of the unpleasantness is unforgiveable.
You are one of - possibly the most - nakedly partisan posters on here. It’s nauseating at times.
Why not give her the benefit of the doubt?
I’m no fan of hers, and didn’t like her original comments, but it’s not clear to me what more she can do than write what is clearly a considered and thoughtful apology.
Your inability to accept it does you no credit.
What is there any doubt about, to give her the benefit of?
If she had resigned it would be possible to take her seriously. As it is she's posturing and you are falling for it
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
My problem with your stance is it means no one can ever make up for an error. Yes, people shouldn't do a bad thing in the first place but it happens and everyone has to react to the world as it is, with imperfect people, not as we would wish it to be.
Seriously, what is she supposed to do? If she became St Francis of Assissi that would not erase her comments but I think we'd consider on balance she'd tilted the scales more in her favour. Of couse she won't become St Francis, but your approach would seem to just encourage people to behave like children since even if they did become St Francis it would mean nothing in your eyes.
When people are children aren't we supposed to encourage positive behaviours by both encouragement and discipline? Not declare them naughty children who should be condemned forever for their poor behaviour, irredeemable no matter how much they may regret their actions? How does that get them to change?
Ultimately your position seems to be that she probably doesn't mean what she said, which is definitely possible, and if she is lying she's not a very good person. But I cannot see how you are holding the high ground by presuming she doesn't mean what she said without proof, or treating it as irrelevant because she is tainted by original sin.
Without dressing it up you appear to just be saying that if someone does a bad thing no action can serve as recompense, not merely that you don't believe Rayner in this specific instance.
PS If it means I am taken advantage of sometimes by giving people a chance, I'd rather be that fool than think it impossible for someone to ever be contrite.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
Grow up.
Yes, that's exactly what she needs to do, but not on my dime. I pay her salary, I expect her to meet minimum standards of behaviour. She doesn't.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
I am a PB Tory. You probably think I'm engaged in "sycophantic applause".
Last night I was strongly criticising her for her irresponsible words. I realised that my criticism was irresponsible given the threat she was under.
I don't expect any applause for openly admitting my change of mind, but I'd be a bit peeved if people kept attacking me for what I said before I changed my mind.
I missed the train-vs-airplane discussion earlier.
I still love the new airship concepts (and, to be fair, they're getting funded and getting built) - somewhere between the two options, but with even better views than the train (you'll look at cruising at around 5000 feet rather than 35000 feet, and with far far larger windows).
One good element is that unlike the airplane, space is not at such a premium (it's purely and solely mass-driven, and expanding the area available doesn't add that much to the mass.
Even the economy-class concepts are pretty much business class on a plane:
And the business class equivalent is even nicer:
And, of course, far lower carbon emissions and making them pure-electric is hugely easier than doing the same for airplanes.
(I would imagine that security might well not be anywhere near as stringent for them. Hijacking an Airlander and trying to ram a building with it would not really work well. It'd bounce off)
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
I am a PB Tory. You probably think I'm engaged in "sycophantic applause".
Last night I was strongly criticising her for her irresponsible words. I realised that my criticism was irresponsible given the threat she was under.
I don't expect any applause for openly admitting my change of mind, but I'd be a bit peeved if people kept attacking me for what I said before I changed my mind.
Yes, I agree with OGH, Shadow Chancellor Reeves is now clearly Starmer's likeliest successor.
Remember the last time a Leader of the Opposition was removed without being allowed to fight a general election, IDS in 2003, he was also replaced by his Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard.
However that does not necessarily mean Reeves would do any better than Starmer. The 32.4% Howard got in 2005, while it saw the Tories gain some seats, still was not enough to win the 2005 general election and was little different to what the Tories were polling under IDS when he was removed
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
No it isnt. Irrespective of the unpleasantness dished out to her on twitter etc, it is fair coment to point out that she is a nasty piece of work with her deliberate "scum' comments , someone few would trust, me least of all. If Labour ended up with her leader, I would laugh my head off. Part of the unpleasantness against her is of her own making, but the manner of the unpleasantness is unforgiveable.
How different is "nasty piece of work" from "scum"?
Point taken.. perhaps..... very unpleasant person. The rest of my post stands.
Still not particularly different! Although her saying it as Deputy Labour leader is very different and far more serious than random poster on pb.com saying it.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
No it isnt. Irrespective of the unpleasantness dished out to her on twitter etc, it is fair coment to point out that she is a nasty piece of work with her deliberate "scum' comments , someone few would trust, me least of all. If Labour ended up with her leader, I would laugh my head off. Part of the unpleasantness against her is of her own making, but the manner of the unpleasantness is unforgiveable.
You are one of - possibly the most - nakedly partisan posters on here. It’s nauseating at times.
Why not give her the benefit of the doubt?
I’m no fan of hers, and didn’t like her original comments, but it’s not clear to me what more she can do than write what is clearly a considered and thoughtful apology.
Your inability to accept it does you no credit.
What is there any doubt about, to give her the benefit of?
If she had resigned it would be possible to take her seriously. As it is she's posturing and you are falling for it
I have long been a Rayner fan, and think that her remarks were not meant to travel beyond her latenight drinking companions. I think she has learnt a hard lesson that there are no private conversations at such events.
She made a mistake in her initial reaction by doubling down, but I think that mistake was a rather over defensive stubbornness. I am glad she has got past that. She is a diamond in the rough.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
No it isnt. Irrespective of the unpleasantness dished out to her on twitter etc, it is fair coment to point out that she is a nasty piece of work with her deliberate "scum' comments , someone few would trust, me least of all. If Labour ended up with her leader, I would laugh my head off. Part of the unpleasantness against her is of her own making, but the manner of the unpleasantness is unforgiveable.
You are one of - possibly the most - nakedly partisan posters on here. It’s nauseating at times.
Why not give her the benefit of the doubt?
I’m no fan of hers, and didn’t like her original comments, but it’s not clear to me what more she can do than write what is clearly a considered and thoughtful apology.
Your inability to accept it does you no credit.
Really...I think she has been warned off. I doubt her apology was given freely. I am not nakedly partisan... i loathe all politicians all are liars...but ..just look at the disgusting comments made about Boris on here before you start trying to lecture me.
Its amazing that comments about Boris, his family , his sexual proclivities and so on so forth pass uncommented upon but Rayner is supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt.
The unpleasant woman that is Angela Rayner deserves every bit of criticm that she gets. Lets hope Speaker Hoyle has sorted her out.
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
I am not a pb Tory. I expect adults in responsible positions to behave responsibly in the first place, rather than behave like mannerless children and then issue overscripted apologies afterwards to roars of sycophantic applause.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
I am a PB Tory. You probably think I'm engaged in "sycophantic applause".
Last night I was strongly criticising her for her irresponsible words. I realised that my criticism was irresponsible given the threat she was under.
I don't expect any applause for openly admitting my change of mind, but I'd be a bit peeved if people kept attacking me for what I said before I changed my mind.
I didn't mean you and I don't understand any of that. I am very relaxed about this horrible woman being under threat, purely on a handing out vs taking it rule of thumb. Scum gonna scum, and good luck to them
Rayner's statement is thoughtful, reflective and sincere, I think. She has made it clear that she won't use such language in future: we can all judge her on that, including whether she lapses into synonyms for scum. I suspect she won't.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
Indeed. Good post. The unwillingness of a small minority of posters to give her the benefit of any doubt is utterly pathetic.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
No it isnt. Irrespective of the unpleasantness dished out to her on twitter etc, it is fair coment to point out that she is a nasty piece of work with her deliberate "scum' comments , someone few would trust, me least of all. If Labour ended up with her leader, I would laugh my head off. Part of the unpleasantness against her is of her own making, but the manner of the unpleasantness is unforgiveable.
You are one of - possibly the most - nakedly partisan posters on here. It’s nauseating at times.
Why not give her the benefit of the doubt?
I’m no fan of hers, and didn’t like her original comments, but it’s not clear to me what more she can do than write what is clearly a considered and thoughtful apology.
Your inability to accept it does you no credit.
What is there any doubt about, to give her the benefit of?
If she had resigned it would be possible to take her seriously. As it is she's posturing and you are falling for it
I missed the train-vs-airplane discussion earlier.
I still love the new airship concepts (and, to be fair, they're getting funded and getting built) - somewhere between the two options, but with even better views than the train (you'll look at cruising at around 5000 feet rather than 35000 feet, and with far far larger windows).
One good element is that unlike the airplane, space is not at such a premium (it's purely and solely mass-driven, and expanding the area available doesn't add that much to the mass.
Even the economy-class concepts are pretty much business class on a plane:
And the business class equivalent is even nicer:
And, of course, far lower carbon emissions and making them pure-electric is hugely easier than doing the same for airplanes.
(I would imagine that security might well not be anywhere near as stringent for them. Hijacking an Airlander and trying to ram a building with it would not really work well. It'd bounce off)
I'm going to disagree with you on Sleeper Trains - the Night Riviera to Cornwall is very good especially if you stump the money for first class. You can be in St Ives for breakfast and that's no bad thing.
I've not travelled Scandinavian trains much since the mid-80s. The Swedish trains were the best of the bunch back then.
But then you're in St Ives without a car
Does St Ives not have all you need?
It's a bit of a conundrum. Public transport in West Cornwall is much improved especially in the summer - buses get you to Lands End, Penzance, Truro, Falmouth and the like and a sturdy walk to Zennor or Gwithian is always to be recommended.
The town itself is very walkable if you don't mind some ups and downs such as Skidden Hill.
If you want to visit the more esoteric venues such as Trevaskis Farm, I agree a car is helpful.
Ooh. Esoteric? What’s at Trevaskis Farm?
You also need a car at St Ives if you want to visit THE HOUSE WHERE ALEISTER CROWLEY KILLED A WOMAN WITH MAGICK
I'm going to disagree with you on Sleeper Trains - the Night Riviera to Cornwall is very good especially if you stump the money for first class. You can be in St Ives for breakfast and that's no bad thing.
I've not travelled Scandinavian trains much since the mid-80s. The Swedish trains were the best of the bunch back then.
But then you're in St Ives without a car
Does St Ives not have all you need?
It's a bit of a conundrum. Public transport in West Cornwall is much improved especially in the summer - buses get you to Lands End, Penzance, Truro, Falmouth and the like and a sturdy walk to Zennor or Gwithian is always to be recommended.
The town itself is very walkable if you don't mind some ups and downs such as Skidden Hill.
If you want to visit the more esoteric venues such as Trevaskis Farm, I agree a car is helpful.
Ooh. Esoteric? What’s at Trevaskis Farm?
You also need a car at St Ives if you want to visit THE HOUSE WHERE ALEISTER CROWLEY KILLED A WOMAN WITH MAGICK
Comments
Thinking horrible things is not illegal for instance, but acting on them often is. I would rather know what someone thinks even if it is horrible, but it is not as important as what they do.
Why don’t all hotels do this?
I like WhatsApp, I just wish it wasn’t owned by ‘Meta’
Many people are suspicious about why this may be, and whether it has anything to do with the vast sums raised from gullible fools keen gamers ...
But I personally think a bigger issue remains. Labour consider themselves morally superior and they allow a culture of hatred towards the Tories to exist. The leadership do more to put a stop to it. You never know, it might make them more electable too.
So IIRC he claimed he didn't look closely enough at that mural for instance and regretted his action as a result, implicitly accepting the criticisms of its offensiveness, but plenty of his supporters continued to defend him on the basis that there was nothing wrong with it at all, and might even have suggested that was the position he still held despite his words.
Remember Hillary’s ‘deplorables’ remark. A polite version of Rayner’s ‘scum’. Given the closeness of the election, it possibly cost her the presidency
I did the sleeper from Mombassa to Nairobi on my honeymoon. A bit shabby but still using the East Africa Railways china and cutlery. The waiter refused to omit courses in the dining car. The soup and fish courses were compulsory. It was an echo of the old Imperial days, and arriving in Nairobi was first through a game park, and then lots of 1950s steam trains rusting. Not expensive then, or tarted up nostalgia, just genuine old stuff wheezing it's way across Africa.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-59079392
This from a 41 year old, deputy leader of the labour party.
The fact that she has been advised that it would be prudent to backtrack and reposition herself, doesn't justify the full on brown nosing ceremony unfolding here.
However, should she not live up to her apology she will face far greater criticism in future. That's not brown nosing, it's giving her a chance for having admitted to an error.
Anglo-French relations are in the worst shape in decades, and this gratuitous insult will hardly help. Diplomacy is best done in private. The rest is public relations.
https://twitter.com/lionelbarber/status/1453799978904653841?s=20
Indeed that actually qualifies as a high level of political debate these days, in contrast to the shitposting or the fascism.
And as for the holier-than-thou people on here who say it's what people really think that counts, not what they say, I'm not convinced. For example, I'm sure everybody knows people at work to whom they'd like to say a range of expletives, but of course they don't - they just think it. Rayner doesn't like Tories, and that's fair enough. But it's not personal - note her warm tribute to Amess. Lots of people on here don't like socialists, and that's fair enough too. It's not a thought crime. But one's dislike should be expressed temperately.
But the message of Truss’s email is sneering contempt and I don’t think it helps.
Norman Tebbit, by contrast, was a lovely, warm individual, who strongly disagreed with me, but was super nice about it.
I frequently see Alan Milburn out and about. Quiet but pleasant enough.
All it is saying is give people a chance if they apologise, and if they still behave poorly it'll look even worse for them for going back on their apology.
If the French wanted diplomacy done in public, they shouldn't have started doing it in public yesterday. If Truss didn't say anything in public then those criticising her for speaking would criticise her for being AWOL.
Marine Le Pen gets 45% in a run off with Macron while Bertrand gets 46% and does best of any of the contenders which should encourage those who see him as a plausible LR candidate.
Zemmour, Pecresse, Barnier and Melanchon all lose badly to Macron and it's worth pointing out none of the opposing candidates are shown ahead of Macron in a run off at this time.
The bit about ordering her minister to do it is a bit girl’s high school and pathetic.
The sleeper trains in the UK are not brilliant, sleeping on the caledonian sleeper even after the expensive new trains was like trying to sleep on top of a washing machine.
Scandinavia has the best trains in the world in my experience (for instance there is a playground carriage on some of the intercity trains) but very unchanging scenery; Tampere to Oulu in Finland was basically 6 hours of the same woodland.
I've done Stockholm-London a couple of times, including the (now discontinued) Rodby-Puttgarden train ferry. However, the trains were totally overcrowded and miserable in Denmark and Germany, even travelling in first class.
Plus there's an interesting element there that she's not the one summoning the ambassador, she's instructed her subordinate to do it. So that sends out the message that the French ambassador isn't even worthy of her seeing, which is a proportionate diplomatic insult in response to how they've been behaving.
A bit like the French publicly recalling the US and Australian ambassadors but not ours post AUKUS. That was a rather petty deliberate diplomatic sleight to all 3 nations. But that's how diplomacy works, the French have been insulting the UK and now our Foreign Secretary has politely and diplomatically returned the favour.
Credit to the many - in most - PB Tories who have graciously accepted the apology.
One little highlight of the trip was befriending our taxi driver, who we did several trips with, out to Naivasha and the like. We treated him to high tea at the Norfolk Hotel* on the terrace, and he in return whispered tales of all the besuited politicians and Wabenzi** around us. I often stay three star, but go to use the public parts of classic old hotels for the atmosphere. The Old Cataract at Aswan, Reid in Funchal, etc.
* sadly closed due to covid, as has the Outspan Hotel in the Aberdares. I don't know if they will re-open.
** Wabenzi: the people who ride in Mercedes Benz, with the implicit suggestion of graft.
I've not travelled Scandinavian trains much since the mid-80s. The Swedish trains were the best of the bunch back then.
As such I have a few quid on Bertrand, as he may scrape through to the final two.
I remember @Chris_from_Paris giving some very good tips that were well worth following. I made £500 on his early Macron tip. I haven't seen him about recently.
https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1453799536615464971
If Labour ended up with her leader, I would laugh my head off. Part of the unpleasantness against her is of her own making, but the manner of the unpleasantness is unforgiveable.
Why not give her the benefit of the doubt?
I’m no fan of hers, and didn’t like her original comments, but it’s not clear to me what more she can do than write what is clearly a considered and thoughtful apology.
Your inability to accept it does you no credit.
Are you familiar with the expression "led by the nose"?
The town itself is very walkable if you don't mind some ups and downs such as Skidden Hill.
If you want to visit the more esoteric venues such as Trevaskis Farm, I agree a car is helpful.
If she had resigned it would be possible to take her seriously. As it is she's posturing and you are falling for it
Seriously, what is she supposed to do? If she became St Francis of Assissi that would not erase her comments but I think we'd consider on balance she'd tilted the scales more in her favour. Of couse she won't become St Francis, but your approach would seem to just encourage people to behave like children since even if they did become St Francis it would mean nothing in your eyes.
When people are children aren't we supposed to encourage positive behaviours by both encouragement and discipline? Not declare them naughty children who should be condemned forever for their poor behaviour, irredeemable no matter how much they may regret their actions? How does that get them to change?
Ultimately your position seems to be that she probably doesn't mean what she said, which is definitely possible, and if she is lying she's not a very good person. But I cannot see how you are holding the high ground by presuming she doesn't mean what she said without proof, or treating it as irrelevant because she is tainted by original sin.
Without dressing it up you appear to just be saying that if someone does a bad thing no action can serve as recompense, not merely that you don't believe Rayner in this specific instance.
PS If it means I am taken advantage of sometimes by giving people a chance, I'd rather be that fool than think it impossible for someone to ever be contrite.
Last night I was strongly criticising her for her irresponsible words. I realised that my criticism was irresponsible given the threat she was under.
I don't expect any applause for openly admitting my change of mind, but I'd be a bit peeved if people kept attacking me for what I said before I changed my mind.
I still love the new airship concepts (and, to be fair, they're getting funded and getting built) - somewhere between the two options, but with even better views than the train (you'll look at cruising at around 5000 feet rather than 35000 feet, and with far far larger windows).
One good element is that unlike the airplane, space is not at such a premium (it's purely and solely mass-driven, and expanding the area available doesn't add that much to the mass.
Even the economy-class concepts are pretty much business class on a plane:
And the business class equivalent is even nicer:
And, of course, far lower carbon emissions and making them pure-electric is hugely easier than doing the same for airplanes.
(I would imagine that security might well not be anywhere near as stringent for them. Hijacking an Airlander and trying to ram a building with it would not really work well. It'd bounce off)
Remember the last time a Leader of the Opposition was removed without being allowed to fight a general election, IDS in 2003, he was also replaced by his Shadow Chancellor, Michael Howard.
However that does not necessarily mean Reeves would do any better than Starmer. The 32.4% Howard got in 2005, while it saw the Tories gain some seats, still was not enough to win the 2005 general election and was little different to what the Tories were polling under IDS when he was removed
She made a mistake in her initial reaction by doubling down, but I think that mistake was a rather over defensive stubbornness. I am glad she has got past that. She is a diamond in the rough.
Its amazing that comments about Boris, his family , his sexual proclivities and so on so forth pass uncommented upon but Rayner is supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt.
The unpleasant woman that is Angela Rayner deserves every bit of criticm that she gets. Lets hope Speaker Hoyle has sorted her out.
(But you mean aeroplanes not airplanes)
You also need a car at St Ives if you want to visit THE HOUSE WHERE ALEISTER CROWLEY KILLED A WOMAN WITH MAGICK