Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Lib-Lab pact that isn’t but could still hurt the Tories – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Foxy said:

    Phil said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Essentially Rittenhouse tried to retreat & de-escalate. The first victim chased him across a parking lot before trying to grab his rifle. Rittenhouse is claiming in court (possibly reasonably) that in that moment he was in fear of his life & was justified in shooting. This wasn’t a grab that just happened - the events leading up to it caused Rittenhouse to genuinely believe he was under threat.

    That the twerp should never have brough an AR-15 to a riot is separate issue.
    You mean concerned citizens were shot dead while trying to disarm an active shooter terrorist?

    If Rittenhouse were Afro-American or Muslim he would be dead at the scene. He is only on trial because of being who he is.
    The prosecution case would say that, however their star witness has said he pointed a gun at the defendant unprovoked. That validated the defence case that it was an act of self defence. Though I'm not an American, were a gun pointed at me I feel as though I would respond in kind and let the consequences be what they will be.

    America is such a strange place and none of us really can be 100% sure about what we'd do in the situations that occur. If you can say 100% that you wouldn't defend yourself against someone who had raised their weapon and threatened your life then fair enough. I wouldn't be able to.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    If a black man went to small town in West Virginia packing an assault rifle, and shot an armed white West Virginia, I'm fairly sure that that "self defence" argument wouldn't hold up in Court.
    I am certainly not going to defend the "historic anti-racist credentials" of American justice and policing
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Off topic (like every other post this evening tbf)...

    Is there a simple calculator available online that shows the global warming impact we each have through the choices we make?

    If we could easily get a summary of the impact of our personal choices (e.g. electric car, flying long-haul, solar panels, new boiler, going veggie, etc. etc.) it might help people decide which steps they could take themsleves.

    My assumption is that none of us are going to do everything we possibly could but a simple calculator might make it easy to choose the options that work for us as individuals.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2021
    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
    It is facing extinction with less than 10 members, it is not very in tune with these increasingly woke times in our universities
    https://thetab.com/uk/2016/09/12/oxfords-bullingdon-club-facing-extinction-18965
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited November 2021
    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    The line the prosecutor took about the last person he shot was utterly utterly comical - the guy has a pistol in his hand and is acting threateningly toward Rittenhouse who is vulnerable on the ground. But because the man with the handgun didn't shoot him 10 feet away, or stand in front of him in a standard 2 hand pistol firing position it entirely nullified Rittenhouse's right to self defence.
    He should never have his AR15 there, but when people

    1) Grab your gun barrel after earlier threatening to kill you
    2) Kick you in the head & go after you with a skateboard being used as a weapon &
    3) Point a gun at you whilst you're lieing on the ground

    You're definitely fearing for your life in all those situations.

    I think his assailants (And they all were) assumed he wouldn't use his gun being a somewhat short kid or something. The prosecution has been dire, particularly on the final shooting.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
    It is facing extinction with less than 10 members, it is not very in tune with these increasingly woke times in our universities
    https://thetab.com/uk/2016/09/12/oxfords-bullingdon-club-facing-extinction-18965
    An article written 5 years ago?

    Fascinating if it has gone extinct. Tho I wonder if a truly secret club has replaced it, which seems much more likely. Also much more fun for the members
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2021
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
    It is facing extinction with less than 10 members, it is not very in tune with these increasingly woke times in our universities
    https://thetab.com/uk/2016/09/12/oxfords-bullingdon-club-facing-extinction-18965
    An article written 5 years ago?

    Fascinating if it has gone extinct. Tho I wonder if a truly secret club has replaced it, which seems much more likely. Also much more fun for the members
    It would have to have gone underground certainly to get past the Students' Union which would have cancelled it long ago
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461
    rcs1000 said:

    Phil said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?

    You can read the court reports on NPR for the basic facts of the case, which appear to be that BLM protests / riots (description might depend on your politics) were happening in Kenosha, Wisconsin after police shot a black man called Jacob Blake and left him paralysed from the waist down. Our hero decided to take his AR-15 & drive from Illinois into Wisconsin to “protect businesses from unrest” (his words I believe). There was then a series of confrontations, where it’s currently unclear whether Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor (this is the main point of contention in the court case), but he was certainly followed & physically attacked by several people, several of whom he shot & killed whilst attempting (in his words) to retreat & turn himself into the police. The details are being hashed out in court. The ultimate outcome is that two people are dead & one shot & injured & now Rittenhouse is facing homicide charges.

    So we have a shitshow that the various political sides can twist into whichever narrative they like. Pro-gun? Rittenhouse was obviously defending himself & those who attacked him were ultimately responsible for this terrible outcome: How sad, so sorry. Anti-gun? Rittenhouse acting as a lone warrior stirred up shit & ended up getting people killed. He’s guilty of criminial endagerment even if he was attacked. White supremecist? Rittenhouse was a virtuous soldier out there protecting the law-abiding majority against marauding BLM rioters. And so on & on.
    The problem - as is so often the case - is that the defendant behaved very badly, but might not be guilty of actual murder. What they are guilty of is behaving in a way that escalates an existing tense situation and increases the chance of somebody (anybody) dying.

    I have little doubt that he was genuinely afraid when he pulled the trigger. He put himself in a stupid situation, and was terrified, and was carrying an assault rifle.

    The offence - to my mind - was deliberately putting himself in a situation where those bad things became more likely.

    If you carry an assault rifle to a demonstration, that has to be a very, very serious offence.
    I'm sure you're right that Rittenhouse was terrified. I wonder, though, if he was as terrified as the two men he killed? Because they're not around to tell us how terrified they were of Rittenhouse.

    Regardless, what sort of 'advanced' society is it that allows a 17 year-old to wander around with an assault rifle? Bonkers.
  • Keir + Ed = Two Sirs!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    One Summertown restaurant even has a Michelin star. Plus of course Le Manoir is not too far from Oxford
    https://www.twoonefive.co.uk/
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461
    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
    It is facing extinction with less than 10 members, it is not very in tune with these increasingly woke times in our universities
    https://thetab.com/uk/2016/09/12/oxfords-bullingdon-club-facing-extinction-18965
    Oh god, don't set Leon off again, please, by referring to 'increasingly woke times' in our universities.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    It had plenty of relatively smart restaurants when we lived nearby throughout the 80s and 90s. It was always our destination for a meal a cut above the local curry house or pub grub.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
    It is facing extinction with less than 10 members, it is not very in tune with these increasingly woke times in our universities
    https://thetab.com/uk/2016/09/12/oxfords-bullingdon-club-facing-extinction-18965
    An article written 5 years ago?

    Fascinating if it has gone extinct. Tho I wonder if a truly secret club has replaced it, which seems much more likely. Also much more fun for the members
    It would have to have gone underground certainly to get past the Students' Union which would have cancelled it long ago
    Sounds like it has been cancelled by the Union and Uni


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club

    So my guess is, it now exists as a secret society, which will be more pleasing to its members AND its critics. Job done
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,588
    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    Assailants? Are you the Rittenhouse defence lawyer? Americans armed? Surely not.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2021

    HYUFD said:

    Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
    It is facing extinction with less than 10 members, it is not very in tune with these increasingly woke times in our universities
    https://thetab.com/uk/2016/09/12/oxfords-bullingdon-club-facing-extinction-18965
    Oh god, don't set Leon off again, please, by referring to 'increasingly woke times' in our universities.
    Even John Cleese has pulled out of speaking at the Cambridge Union as a protest over Wokeism because it has banned Andrew Graham Dixon, despite it being his alma mater
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-59237741
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    One Summertown restaurant even has a Michelin star. Plus of course Le Manoir is not too far from Oxford
    https://www.twoonefive.co.uk/
    Le Manoir is 20 minutes drive from Oxford. In Oxford terms that is Die Groot Trek for an evening out...
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?

  • Allie Hodgkins-Brown
    @AllieHBNews
    ·
    22m
    Thursday’s Daily MAIL: “£5.5m MP With No Shame” #TomorrowsPapersToday
  • By election coming in Devon?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    One Summertown restaurant even has a Michelin star. Plus of course Le Manoir is not too far from Oxford
    https://www.twoonefive.co.uk/
    Le Manoir is 20 minutes drive from Oxford. In Oxford terms that is Die Groot Trek for an evening out...
    But in 1977 Blanc opened Les Quat' Saisons in Summertown and soon had two Michelin stars.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Pompette I wasn't impressed with - South Parade has always been a rather average.

    Haven't tried Two One Five.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    One Summertown restaurant even has a Michelin star. Plus of course Le Manoir is not too far from Oxford
    https://www.twoonefive.co.uk/
    Le Manoir is 20 minutes drive from Oxford. In Oxford terms that is Die Groot Trek for an evening out...
    In the play/film Riot Club/Posh - iirc the Bullingdon types travel far out into the Oxfordshire countryside in order to smash a place up. Fiction of course.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    It had plenty of relatively smart restaurants when we lived nearby throughout the 80s and 90s. It was always our destination for a meal a cut above the local curry house or pub grub.
    I guess it depends on what you class as smart.

    Gees was good at one point....
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276
    edited November 2021
    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited November 2021

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Pompette I wasn't impressed with - South Parade has always been a rather average.

    Haven't tried Two One Five.
    I just wonder what you're comparing Oxford with (then or now) to have such a poor opinion of its restaurant scene.

    Try growing up in Hastings or living in Selby, both of which I have... I can tell you Oxford is a culinary paradise in comparison!

    Not fine dining by any stretch but Browns was an institution back in the 80s - no booking and queues every night to get a table. Those were the days!
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Oxford’s kind of like a mini Paris like that. There’s the actual centre flanked by the porte du pont de Magdalen, porte de Keble, porte rue de Banbury and porte de Westgate, and then there’s the Banlieues. Some of them have posh restaurants, but they are still banlieues, outwith the city. Instead of the périphérique there are the rivers and parks acting as a moat.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787

    rcs1000 said:

    Phil said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?

    You can read the court reports on NPR for the basic facts of the case, which appear to be that BLM protests / riots (description might depend on your politics) were happening in Kenosha, Wisconsin after police shot a black man called Jacob Blake and left him paralysed from the waist down. Our hero decided to take his AR-15 & drive from Illinois into Wisconsin to “protect businesses from unrest” (his words I believe). There was then a series of confrontations, where it’s currently unclear whether Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor (this is the main point of contention in the court case), but he was certainly followed & physically attacked by several people, several of whom he shot & killed whilst attempting (in his words) to retreat & turn himself into the police. The details are being hashed out in court. The ultimate outcome is that two people are dead & one shot & injured & now Rittenhouse is facing homicide charges.

    So we have a shitshow that the various political sides can twist into whichever narrative they like. Pro-gun? Rittenhouse was obviously defending himself & those who attacked him were ultimately responsible for this terrible outcome: How sad, so sorry. Anti-gun? Rittenhouse acting as a lone warrior stirred up shit & ended up getting people killed. He’s guilty of criminial endagerment even if he was attacked. White supremecist? Rittenhouse was a virtuous soldier out there protecting the law-abiding majority against marauding BLM rioters. And so on & on.
    The problem - as is so often the case - is that the defendant behaved very badly, but might not be guilty of actual murder. What they are guilty of is behaving in a way that escalates an existing tense situation and increases the chance of somebody (anybody) dying.

    I have little doubt that he was genuinely afraid when he pulled the trigger. He put himself in a stupid situation, and was terrified, and was carrying an assault rifle.

    The offence - to my mind - was deliberately putting himself in a situation where those bad things became more likely.

    If you carry an assault rifle to a demonstration, that has to be a very, very serious offence.
    I'm sure you're right that Rittenhouse was terrified. I wonder, though, if he was as terrified as the two men he killed? Because they're not around to tell us how terrified they were of Rittenhouse.

    Regardless, what sort of 'advanced' society is it that allows a 17 year-old to wander around with an assault rifle? Bonkers.
    It doesn’t. He was also charged with under-age possession of a firearm, and the person who supplied him with it was also charged with unlawful supply because Rittenhouse was under age.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    edited November 2021
    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Oxford’s kind of like a mini Paris like that. There’s the actual centre flanked by the porte du pont de Magdalen, porte de Keble, porte rue de Banbury and porte de Westgate, and then there’s the Banlieues. Some of them have posh restaurants, but they are still banlieues, outwith the city. Instead of the périphérique there are the rivers and parks acting as a moat.
    No way is Summertown a banlieue in the current meaning of the word! 😂
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    By election coming in Devon?

    Cox is popular, do not forget he has turned a seat the LDs held in 1997 and 2001 into one with a Tory voteshare of 60% in 2019 since he first won the seat in 2005
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    The line the prosecutor took about the last person he shot was utterly utterly comical - the guy has a pistol in his hand and is acting threateningly toward Rittenhouse who is vulnerable on the ground. But because the man with the handgun didn't shoot him 10 feet away, or stand in front of him in a standard 2 hand pistol firing position it entirely nullified Rittenhouse's right to self defence.
    He should never have his AR15 there, but when people

    1) Grab your gun barrel after earlier threatening to kill you
    2) Kick you in the head & go after you with a skateboard being used as a weapon &
    3) Point a gun at you whilst you're lieing on the ground

    You're definitely fearing for your life in all those situations.

    I think his assailants (And they all were) assumed he wouldn't use his gun being a somewhat short kid or something. The prosecution has been dire, particularly on the final shooting.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    I'm not saying Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But it does seem that this is somewhat akin to drunk driving. You are knowingly putting yourself in a position where somebody is dramatically more likely to die as a result of an accident.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,919

    rcs1000 said:

    Phil said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?

    You can read the court reports on NPR for the basic facts of the case, which appear to be that BLM protests / riots (description might depend on your politics) were happening in Kenosha, Wisconsin after police shot a black man called Jacob Blake and left him paralysed from the waist down. Our hero decided to take his AR-15 & drive from Illinois into Wisconsin to “protect businesses from unrest” (his words I believe). There was then a series of confrontations, where it’s currently unclear whether Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor (this is the main point of contention in the court case), but he was certainly followed & physically attacked by several people, several of whom he shot & killed whilst attempting (in his words) to retreat & turn himself into the police. The details are being hashed out in court. The ultimate outcome is that two people are dead & one shot & injured & now Rittenhouse is facing homicide charges.

    So we have a shitshow that the various political sides can twist into whichever narrative they like. Pro-gun? Rittenhouse was obviously defending himself & those who attacked him were ultimately responsible for this terrible outcome: How sad, so sorry. Anti-gun? Rittenhouse acting as a lone warrior stirred up shit & ended up getting people killed. He’s guilty of criminial endagerment even if he was attacked. White supremecist? Rittenhouse was a virtuous soldier out there protecting the law-abiding majority against marauding BLM rioters. And so on & on.
    The problem - as is so often the case - is that the defendant behaved very badly, but might not be guilty of actual murder. What they are guilty of is behaving in a way that escalates an existing tense situation and increases the chance of somebody (anybody) dying.

    I have little doubt that he was genuinely afraid when he pulled the trigger. He put himself in a stupid situation, and was terrified, and was carrying an assault rifle.

    The offence - to my mind - was deliberately putting himself in a situation where those bad things became more likely.

    If you carry an assault rifle to a demonstration, that has to be a very, very serious offence.
    I'm sure you're right that Rittenhouse was terrified. I wonder, though, if he was as terrified as the two men he killed? Because they're not around to tell us how terrified they were of Rittenhouse.

    Regardless, what sort of 'advanced' society is it that allows a 17 year-old to wander around with an assault rifle? Bonkers.
    Well, they’re not around because they assaulted him (apart from the last guy who was shot in the arm). The evidence on that seems pretty clear. They weren’t attacking him in desperate self defence having been cornered - they chased & attacked him. Which is a mad thing to do to someone carrying an AR-15, but I guess they just didn’t believe he would shoot them.

    The whole thing is a total shitshow.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    edited November 2021

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    One Summertown restaurant even has a Michelin star. Plus of course Le Manoir is not too far from Oxford
    https://www.twoonefive.co.uk/
    Le Manoir is 20 minutes drive from Oxford. In Oxford terms that is Die Groot Trek for an evening out...
    In the play/film Riot Club/Posh - iirc the Bullingdon types travel far out into the Oxfordshire countryside in order to smash a place up. Fiction of course.
    Bunch of fucking peasants. These days you travel to the British Virgin Islands.

    And these days you don't have a party that trashes a restaurant, you have job that trashes your Party.

    Bullingdon 2021 is a much bigger game.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Is my old MP mired in sleaze?

    “A company based in Upminster has secured government contracts worth more than £800 million via a controversial ‘VIP’ system.

    Uniserve did not have to compete for PPE contracts, worth more than £300 million, despite having no previous experience supplying the equipment according to an investigation by the Good Law Project.




    The company is based at the same address as MP and Cabinet Office minister Julia Lopez in Hall Lane, Upminster”


    https://www.time1075.net/173289-2-upminster-company-vip-ppe-contracts/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    One Summertown restaurant even has a Michelin star. Plus of course Le Manoir is not too far from Oxford
    https://www.twoonefive.co.uk/
    Le Manoir is 20 minutes drive from Oxford. In Oxford terms that is Die Groot Trek for an evening out...
    But in 1977 Blanc opened Les Quat' Saisons in Summertown and soon had two Michelin stars.
    He move to Le Manoir, out of town, as fast as he could raise the finance - 83 or 84?

    Same place that became the Oxford Kitchen - and then Two One Five - wasn't it?
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    Phil said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Essentially Rittenhouse tried to retreat & de-escalate. The first victim chased him across a parking lot before trying to grab his rifle. Rittenhouse is claiming in court (possibly reasonably) that in that moment he was in fear of his life & was justified in shooting. This wasn’t a grab that just happened - the events leading up to it caused Rittenhouse to genuinely believe he was under threat.

    That the twerp should never have brough an AR-15 to a riot is separate issue.
    You mean concerned citizens were shot dead while trying to disarm an active shooter terrorist?

    If Rittenhouse were Afro-American or Muslim he would be dead at the scene. He is only on trial because of being who he is.
    The prosecution case would say that, however their star witness has said he pointed a gun at the defendant unprovoked. That validated the defence case that it was an act of self defence. Though I'm not an American, were a gun pointed at me I feel as though I would respond in kind and let the consequences be what they will be.

    America is such a strange place and none of us really can be 100% sure about what we'd do in the situations that occur. If you can say 100% that you wouldn't defend yourself against someone who had raised their weapon and threatened your life then fair enough. I wouldn't be able to.
    One of the people Rittenhouse killed was themselves armed, but the other wasn’t.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 1,919

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Oxford’s kind of like a mini Paris like that. There’s the actual centre flanked by the porte du pont de Magdalen, porte de Keble, porte rue de Banbury and porte de Westgate, and then there’s the Banlieues. Some of them have posh restaurants, but they are still banlieues, outwith the city. Instead of the périphérique there are the rivers and parks acting as a moat.
    No way is Summertown a banlieue in its current connotation! 😂
    A well known author used to refer to the “Kingdom of Oxford” and the “Republic of Oxford”. You can guess which one of these contained Summertown.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,883



    If we ever meet at a PB social, I won't be so harsh as to be so insulting.

    I would. #huntthehunters
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Oxford’s kind of like a mini Paris like that. There’s the actual centre flanked by the porte du pont de Magdalen, porte de Keble, porte rue de Banbury and porte de Westgate, and then there’s the Banlieues. Some of them have posh restaurants, but they are still banlieues, outwith the city. Instead of the périphérique there are the rivers and parks acting as a moat.
    No way is Summertown a banlieue in its current connotation! 😂
    Even Neuilly sur Seine is officially banlieue. But yes, the pop culture meaning is more Blackbird Leys.

    The better comparison is perhaps Manhattan vs the other boroughs. Similar shape to the city centre too.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there

    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    The 7 day averages do seem to be spiking severely there.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Pompette I wasn't impressed with - South Parade has always been a rather average.

    Haven't tried Two One Five.
    I just wonder what you're comparing Oxford with (then or now) to have such a poor opinion of its restaurant scene.

    Try growing up in Hastings or living in Selby, both of which I have... I can tell you Oxford is a culinary paradise in comparison!

    Not fine dining by any stretch but Browns was an institution back in the 80s - no booking and queues every night to get a table. Those were the days!
    Christ... Browns.... The inedible in search of the gullible..... They did do some good cocktails for a while, though.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    HYUFD said:

    By election coming in Devon?

    Cox is popular, do not forget he has turned a seat the LDs held in 1997 and 2001 into one with a Tory voteshare of 60% in 2019 since he first won the seat in 2005
    Cox's popularity is not going to be much use once he's resigned is it?
  • TimSTimS Posts: 9,169

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there

    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    The 7 day averages do seem to be spiking severely there.
    I seem to recall they have very lumpy daily numbers with some quite wild reporting swings, probably because of the federalised healthcare system.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
  • HYUFD said:

    By election coming in Devon?

    Cox is popular, do not forget he has turned a seat the LDs held in 1997 and 2001 into one with a Tory voteshare of 60% in 2019 since he first won the seat in 2005
    Cox's popularity is not going to be much use once he's resigned is it?
    That was my point.

    He walks because why would someone of his earning power and occupational status put up with the flack he's getting over his earnings just to have MP on his business card?

    Difficult to believe he is an MP because he wants to change the world a la Corbyn or Gordon Brown.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    When some POC do too well & spoil the story

    ‘We're at the point in the discourse when colleges have created the highly scientific and totally legitimate racial category of "Students of Color, minus Asian" ‘

    https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1458563907837038595?s=21
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
    I'll do what I like, thanks very much, and you can ignore it or not


    45k cases is so completely out of whack it does raise suspicions. The previous highest was ~32k back in April 2021
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    I also think it's very important to look at the test positivity rates, as well as the absolute numbers. Places with really high positivity rates are likely to be massively undercounting the actual number of cases, while those with low positivity rates are probably much nearer to the real number.

    Slovenia and Croatia, for example, have positivity rates above 40%.

    Germany is about 6%, while Denmark and the UK are at 4%.

    So, Germany's number is likely worse than their official numbers. But not a lot worse. Likewise, Denmark's jump in case numbers is at least not being flattered by insufficient testing.

    You want to know which places have jumping case rates, and rising positivity?

    Ireland (14% positivity), Belgium (13%) and Norway (12%). Both those countries probably have at least twice the number of cases that the official figures suggest.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Pompette I wasn't impressed with - South Parade has always been a rather average.

    Haven't tried Two One Five.
    I just wonder what you're comparing Oxford with (then or now) to have such a poor opinion of its restaurant scene.

    Try growing up in Hastings or living in Selby, both of which I have... I can tell you Oxford is a culinary paradise in comparison!

    Not fine dining by any stretch but Browns was an institution back in the 80s - no booking and queues every night to get a table. Those were the days!
    Christ... Browns.... The inedible in search of the gullible..... They did do some good cocktails for a while, though.
    The food was certainly edible and not extortionate. It had an atmosphere that was hard to beat. I have many fond memories of boozy meals there. Went back a few years ago for 'old times' sake'... A very strange experience: the decor is entirely unaltered, the atmosphere completely gone.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
    I'll do what I like, thanks very much, and you can ignore it or not


    45k cases is so completely out of whack it does raise suspicions. The previous highest was ~32k back in April 2021
    Sigh - look at the history. It's a collection of wild spikes. Otherwise you are just fooling yourself.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712

    HYUFD said:

    By election coming in Devon?

    Cox is popular, do not forget he has turned a seat the LDs held in 1997 and 2001 into one with a Tory voteshare of 60% in 2019 since he first won the seat in 2005
    Cox's popularity is not going to be much use once he's resigned is it?
    That was my point.

    He walks because why would someone of his earning power and occupational status put up with the flack he's getting over his earnings just to have MP on his business card?

    Difficult to believe he is an MP because he wants to change the world a la Corbyn or Gordon Brown.
    He has had plenty of flack from opposition parties locally on his legal work before but still been easily re elected
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
    I'll do what I like, thanks very much, and you can ignore it or not


    45k cases is so completely out of whack it does raise suspicions. The previous highest was ~32k back in April 2021
    Sigh - look at the history. It's a collection of wild spikes. Otherwise you are just fooling yourself.
    But, look at the spikes. This is the wildest spike of all. Coincidence? I doubt it
  • TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Oxford’s kind of like a mini Paris like that. There’s the actual centre flanked by the porte du pont de Magdalen, porte de Keble, porte rue de Banbury and porte de Westgate, and then there’s the Banlieues. Some of them have posh restaurants, but they are still banlieues, outwith the city. Instead of the périphérique there are the rivers and parks acting as a moat.
    One of my key memories of a number of visits on business to Oxford a decade or so ago was being amazed how basic/shit/unforgettable the railway station is compared to the hallowed groves of academia.

    Surely the city fathers could have spent a few more quid on a decent station?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
    I'll do what I like, thanks very much, and you can ignore it or not


    45k cases is so completely out of whack it does raise suspicions. The previous highest was ~32k back in April 2021
    The German seven day average actually started pointing down sharply yesterday, so I suspect this big leap is a catch up from yesterday.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    The line the prosecutor took about the last person he shot was utterly utterly comical - the guy has a pistol in his hand and is acting threateningly toward Rittenhouse who is vulnerable on the ground. But because the man with the handgun didn't shoot him 10 feet away, or stand in front of him in a standard 2 hand pistol firing position it entirely nullified Rittenhouse's right to self defence.
    He should never have his AR15 there, but when people

    1) Grab your gun barrel after earlier threatening to kill you
    2) Kick you in the head & go after you with a skateboard being used as a weapon &
    3) Point a gun at you whilst you're lieing on the ground

    You're definitely fearing for your life in all those situations.

    I think his assailants (And they all were) assumed he wouldn't use his gun being a somewhat short kid or something. The prosecution has been dire, particularly on the final shooting.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    I'm not saying Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But it does seem that this is somewhat akin to drunk driving. You are knowingly putting yourself in a position where somebody is dramatically more likely to die as a result of an accident.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    Err no. The logical thing is to stop chasing after someone who has just pointed a gun at you 5 seconds earlier.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082
    edited November 2021

    Off topic (like every other post this evening tbf)...

    Is there a simple calculator available online that shows the global warming impact we each have through the choices we make?

    If we could easily get a summary of the impact of our personal choices (e.g. electric car, flying long-haul, solar panels, new boiler, going veggie, etc. etc.) it might help people decide which steps they could take themsleves.

    My assumption is that none of us are going to do everything we possibly could but a simple calculator might make it easy to choose the options that work for us as individuals.

    There are quite a few apps and online carbon calculators. The WWF has one. Some seem to be pushing carbon offset sales but I think the calculations themselves are OK.

    My carbon footprint on the WWF is 9 tons per year, slightly less than the national average that they cite, and I haven't flown anywhere, and have an electric car and we'll insulated house. It isn't going to be easy going lower.

    https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/results/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Pompette I wasn't impressed with - South Parade has always been a rather average.

    Haven't tried Two One Five.
    I just wonder what you're comparing Oxford with (then or now) to have such a poor opinion of its restaurant scene.

    Try growing up in Hastings or living in Selby, both of which I have... I can tell you Oxford is a culinary paradise in comparison!

    Not fine dining by any stretch but Browns was an institution back in the 80s - no booking and queues every night to get a table. Those were the days!
    Christ... Browns.... The inedible in search of the gullible..... They did do some good cocktails for a while, though.
    The food was certainly edible and not extortionate. It had an atmosphere that was hard to beat. I have many fond memories of boozy meals there. Went back a few years ago for 'old times' sake'... A very strange experience: the decor is entirely unaltered, the atmosphere completely gone.
    Perhaps you were 2 bottles too sober to enjoy it?

    It is interesting when you go back to places - have they become shit, or did we just grow out of them?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
    I'll do what I like, thanks very much, and you can ignore it or not


    45k cases is so completely out of whack it does raise suspicions. The previous highest was ~32k back in April 2021
    Worldometers' 7 day average supports your point here Leon. It's doubled in two weeks.
  • Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    The line the prosecutor took about the last person he shot was utterly utterly comical - the guy has a pistol in his hand and is acting threateningly toward Rittenhouse who is vulnerable on the ground. But because the man with the handgun didn't shoot him 10 feet away, or stand in front of him in a standard 2 hand pistol firing position it entirely nullified Rittenhouse's right to self defence.
    He should never have his AR15 there, but when people

    1) Grab your gun barrel after earlier threatening to kill you
    2) Kick you in the head & go after you with a skateboard being used as a weapon &
    3) Point a gun at you whilst you're lieing on the ground

    You're definitely fearing for your life in all those situations.

    I think his assailants (And they all were) assumed he wouldn't use his gun being a somewhat short kid or something. The prosecution has been dire, particularly on the final shooting.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    I'm not saying Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But it does seem that this is somewhat akin to drunk driving. You are knowingly putting yourself in a position where somebody is dramatically more likely to die as a result of an accident.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    Err no. The logical thing is to stop chasing after someone who has just pointed a gun at you 5 seconds earlier.
    Fight or flight - if someone has a gun then disarming them is the logical fight choice.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
    I'll do what I like, thanks very much, and you can ignore it or not


    45k cases is so completely out of whack it does raise suspicions. The previous highest was ~32k back in April 2021
    Sigh - look at the history. It's a collection of wild spikes. Otherwise you are just fooling yourself.
    But, look at the spikes. This is the wildest spike of all. Coincidence? I doubt it
    So you construct an average. One point of data and all that.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    By election coming in Devon?

    Cox is popular, do not forget he has turned a seat the LDs held in 1997 and 2001 into one with a Tory voteshare of 60% in 2019 since he first won the seat in 2005
    Cox's popularity is not going to be much use once he's resigned is it?
    That was my point.

    He walks because why would someone of his earning power and occupational status put up with the flack he's getting over his earnings just to have MP on his business card?

    Difficult to believe he is an MP because he wants to change the world a la Corbyn or Gordon Brown.
    He has had plenty of flack from opposition parties locally on his legal work before but still been easily re elected
    I'm not saying he wouldn't be reelected - I'm saying why would he bother standing again or walking early?

    He isn't there to stop world poverty.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,094

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
    I'll do what I like, thanks very much, and you can ignore it or not


    45k cases is so completely out of whack it does raise suspicions. The previous highest was ~32k back in April 2021
    Sigh - look at the history. It's a collection of wild spikes. Otherwise you are just fooling yourself.
    Trying to impress logic upon him is like trying to catch wind in a net.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    The line the prosecutor took about the last person he shot was utterly utterly comical - the guy has a pistol in his hand and is acting threateningly toward Rittenhouse who is vulnerable on the ground. But because the man with the handgun didn't shoot him 10 feet away, or stand in front of him in a standard 2 hand pistol firing position it entirely nullified Rittenhouse's right to self defence.
    He should never have his AR15 there, but when people

    1) Grab your gun barrel after earlier threatening to kill you
    2) Kick you in the head & go after you with a skateboard being used as a weapon &
    3) Point a gun at you whilst you're lieing on the ground

    You're definitely fearing for your life in all those situations.

    I think his assailants (And they all were) assumed he wouldn't use his gun being a somewhat short kid or something. The prosecution has been dire, particularly on the final shooting.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    I'm not saying Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But it does seem that this is somewhat akin to drunk driving. You are knowingly putting yourself in a position where somebody is dramatically more likely to die as a result of an accident.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    Err no. The logical thing is to stop chasing after someone who has just pointed a gun at you 5 seconds earlier.
    Really? You'd turn your back on someone who'd been waving a gun at you?

    Should people be drilled in how to behave if there's a AR15 toting teenager on the street?

    'Whatever you do, don't try and disarm him. He may be scared, and then he's allowed to shoot you."
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
    I'll do what I like, thanks very much, and you can ignore it or not


    45k cases is so completely out of whack it does raise suspicions. The previous highest was ~32k back in April 2021
    Sigh - look at the history. It's a collection of wild spikes. Otherwise you are just fooling yourself.
    But, look at the spikes. This is the wildest spike of all. Coincidence? I doubt it
    So you construct an average. One point of data and all that.

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
    I'll do what I like, thanks very much, and you can ignore it or not


    45k cases is so completely out of whack it does raise suspicions. The previous highest was ~32k back in April 2021
    Sigh - look at the history. It's a collection of wild spikes. Otherwise you are just fooling yourself.
    But, look at the spikes. This is the wildest spike of all. Coincidence? I doubt it
    So you construct an average. One point of data and all that.
    I know how maths works, but thanks, anyway
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 14,772

    Off topic (like every other post this evening tbf)...

    Is there a simple calculator available online that shows the global warming impact we each have through the choices we make?

    If we could easily get a summary of the impact of our personal choices (e.g. electric car, flying long-haul, solar panels, new boiler, going veggie, etc. etc.) it might help people decide which steps they could take themsleves.

    My assumption is that none of us are going to do everything we possibly could but a simple calculator might make it easy to choose the options that work for us as individuals.

    There are simple (ish) calculators but they won't be as good as a complicated calculator, and the truth is that a lot of your impact will be due to choices beyond your control, or you won't have the information to be able to know.

    For example, you will find calculators mostly use average values for things like flying or train travel, but different planes are more or less efficient, and it makes a pretty big difference whether your train route is electrified or diesel.

    The same applies, but more so, for food. How do you find out what your chicken was fed on? There are massively wide estimates for the carbon impact of foods depending on the animal feed used, or fertilizer, or any number of other factors.

    This is why I think the question of individual action is mostly a dead-end. Government has to take a lead and create the market conditions so that the options businesses provide to consumers will be zero carbon, and then you will be green without noticing.

    This is what is happening with the growth of wind electricity on the grid, and with the transition to electric cars. Hopefully the same will happen with domestic heating and improving standards in agriculture to reduce emissions. And so on, and so forth.

    The best thing you can probably do is to hand write a letter to your MP expressing in your own words why you want them to support things like this.

    In terms of whether an electric car is a better choice than solar panels, etc, I think you really need to run the numbers for your personal circumstances. How much fuel do you use each year in your car that wouldn't be burnt if you went electric and compare that to the energy generated by solar panels.

    And you don't have to go completely veggie. Have fun experimenting with a few extra meatless meals and you might find some that you want to eat because they're tasty, and then it isn't a penance to reduce your carbon emissions.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
    I'll do what I like, thanks very much, and you can ignore it or not


    45k cases is so completely out of whack it does raise suspicions. The previous highest was ~32k back in April 2021
    Worldometers' 7 day average supports your point here Leon. It's doubled in two weeks.
    It looks like chunks of Europe are heading for new lockdowns. Romania has had a curfew for a while, already
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 61,584
    Interesting.

    69 percent say cancel culture unfairly punishes people for past actions, statements
    https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/580747-poll-69-percent-say-cancel-culture-unfairly-punishes-people-for
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Oxford’s kind of like a mini Paris like that. There’s the actual centre flanked by the porte du pont de Magdalen, porte de Keble, porte rue de Banbury and porte de Westgate, and then there’s the Banlieues. Some of them have posh restaurants, but they are still banlieues, outwith the city. Instead of the périphérique there are the rivers and parks acting as a moat.
    One of my key memories of a number of visits on business to Oxford a decade or so ago was being amazed how basic/shit/unforgettable the railway station is compared to the hallowed groves of academia.

    Surely the city fathers could have spent a few more quid on a decent station?
    Ha ha.

    Did you see the bus station? That killed any enthusiasm for clever redesigns for the station.

    Imagine you are building a station for big coaches. Where do you put it? 90 degree entry to a busy, not especially wide street, obviously. Only one entrance/exit of course. Which is not wide enough for one coach to go in at the same time as one goes out.

    The cherry on the cake is that if a bus driver misjudges his turn and comes in as someone tries to leave, they get stuck by the traffic behind them. Which due to Oxford's no-way* traffic system means that the centre of Oxford locks up surprisingly fast.

    *It's like a one-way system, but less so.
  • Farooq said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    I mean, the Bullingdon Club definitely exists, and it's definitely a dining club. Whether or not the places they go to can always be described as posh is probably not the point. And the antics certainly don't seem made up:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/4066329.stm
    That sounds like exactly the incident in the film/play 'Riot Club', only about 10x less overblown and drunken.

    Love the waitress: "It was not through excess drinking, it was planned. They were not really drunk or throwing up."
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,461
    rpjs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Phil said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    Can someone do a tl;dr or ELI5 on rittenhouse? Were his victims black? woke? jewish? in the wrong place at the wrong time? Or what?

    You can read the court reports on NPR for the basic facts of the case, which appear to be that BLM protests / riots (description might depend on your politics) were happening in Kenosha, Wisconsin after police shot a black man called Jacob Blake and left him paralysed from the waist down. Our hero decided to take his AR-15 & drive from Illinois into Wisconsin to “protect businesses from unrest” (his words I believe). There was then a series of confrontations, where it’s currently unclear whether Rittenhouse was the initial aggressor (this is the main point of contention in the court case), but he was certainly followed & physically attacked by several people, several of whom he shot & killed whilst attempting (in his words) to retreat & turn himself into the police. The details are being hashed out in court. The ultimate outcome is that two people are dead & one shot & injured & now Rittenhouse is facing homicide charges.

    So we have a shitshow that the various political sides can twist into whichever narrative they like. Pro-gun? Rittenhouse was obviously defending himself & those who attacked him were ultimately responsible for this terrible outcome: How sad, so sorry. Anti-gun? Rittenhouse acting as a lone warrior stirred up shit & ended up getting people killed. He’s guilty of criminial endagerment even if he was attacked. White supremecist? Rittenhouse was a virtuous soldier out there protecting the law-abiding majority against marauding BLM rioters. And so on & on.
    The problem - as is so often the case - is that the defendant behaved very badly, but might not be guilty of actual murder. What they are guilty of is behaving in a way that escalates an existing tense situation and increases the chance of somebody (anybody) dying.

    I have little doubt that he was genuinely afraid when he pulled the trigger. He put himself in a stupid situation, and was terrified, and was carrying an assault rifle.

    The offence - to my mind - was deliberately putting himself in a situation where those bad things became more likely.

    If you carry an assault rifle to a demonstration, that has to be a very, very serious offence.
    I'm sure you're right that Rittenhouse was terrified. I wonder, though, if he was as terrified as the two men he killed? Because they're not around to tell us how terrified they were of Rittenhouse.

    Regardless, what sort of 'advanced' society is it that allows a 17 year-old to wander around with an assault rifle? Bonkers.
    It doesn’t. He was also charged with under-age possession of a firearm, and the person who supplied him with it was also charged with unlawful supply because Rittenhouse was under age.
    Fair enough, sorry - 'allows' was the wrong word. But my general point stands - the easy access to guns and the gun culture in the USA is bonkers for a supposedly advanced, civilised society. It's like the Wild West never ended.
  • TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Oxford’s kind of like a mini Paris like that. There’s the actual centre flanked by the porte du pont de Magdalen, porte de Keble, porte rue de Banbury and porte de Westgate, and then there’s the Banlieues. Some of them have posh restaurants, but they are still banlieues, outwith the city. Instead of the périphérique there are the rivers and parks acting as a moat.
    One of my key memories of a number of visits on business to Oxford a decade or so ago was being amazed how basic/shit/unforgettable the railway station is compared to the hallowed groves of academia.

    Surely the city fathers could have spent a few more quid on a decent station?
    Ha ha.

    Did you see the bus station? That killed any enthusiasm for clever redesigns for the station.

    Imagine you are building a station for big coaches. Where do you put it? 90 degree entry to a busy, not especially wide street, obviously. Only one entrance/exit of course. Which is not wide enough for one coach to go in at the same time as one goes out.

    The cherry on the cake is that if a bus driver misjudges his turn and comes in as someone tries to leave, they get stuck by the traffic behind them. Which due to Oxford's no-way* traffic system means that the centre of Oxford locks up surprisingly fast.

    *It's like a one-way system, but less so.
    Being posh, I did not see the bus station. :smiley:
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited November 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    The line the prosecutor took about the last person he shot was utterly utterly comical - the guy has a pistol in his hand and is acting threateningly toward Rittenhouse who is vulnerable on the ground. But because the man with the handgun didn't shoot him 10 feet away, or stand in front of him in a standard 2 hand pistol firing position it entirely nullified Rittenhouse's right to self defence.
    He should never have his AR15 there, but when people

    1) Grab your gun barrel after earlier threatening to kill you
    2) Kick you in the head & go after you with a skateboard being used as a weapon &
    3) Point a gun at you whilst you're lieing on the ground

    You're definitely fearing for your life in all those situations.

    I think his assailants (And they all were) assumed he wouldn't use his gun being a somewhat short kid or something. The prosecution has been dire, particularly on the final shooting.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    I'm not saying Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But it does seem that this is somewhat akin to drunk driving. You are knowingly putting yourself in a position where somebody is dramatically more likely to die as a result of an accident.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    Err no. The logical thing is to stop chasing after someone who has just pointed a gun at you 5 seconds earlier.
    Really? You'd turn your back on someone who'd been waving a gun at you?

    Should people be drilled in how to behave if there's a AR15 toting teenager on the street?

    'Whatever you do, don't try and disarm him. He may be scared, and then he's allowed to shoot you."
    Whatever you do, don't try and disarm him.

    Well, err, yes.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Foxy said:

    Off topic (like every other post this evening tbf)...

    Is there a simple calculator available online that shows the global warming impact we each have through the choices we make?

    If we could easily get a summary of the impact of our personal choices (e.g. electric car, flying long-haul, solar panels, new boiler, going veggie, etc. etc.) it might help people decide which steps they could take themsleves.

    My assumption is that none of us are going to do everything we possibly could but a simple calculator might make it easy to choose the options that work for us as individuals.

    There are quite a few apps and online carbon calculators. The WWF has one. Some seem to be pushing carbon offset sales but I think the calculations themselves are OK.

    My carbon footprint on the WWF is 9 tons per year, slightly less than the national average that they cite, and I haven't flown anywhere, and have an electric car and we'll insulated house. It isn't going to be easy going lower.

    https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/results/
    11 tonnes. I live in a shockingly badly insulated house.

    I lied about my flights on the survey. I haven't flown in the last year, but I counted backward from March 2020 so included 1 flight in the year to that point.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Oxford’s kind of like a mini Paris like that. There’s the actual centre flanked by the porte du pont de Magdalen, porte de Keble, porte rue de Banbury and porte de Westgate, and then there’s the Banlieues. Some of them have posh restaurants, but they are still banlieues, outwith the city. Instead of the périphérique there are the rivers and parks acting as a moat.
    One of my key memories of a number of visits on business to Oxford a decade or so ago was being amazed how basic/shit/unforgettable the railway station is compared to the hallowed groves of academia.

    Surely the city fathers could have spent a few more quid on a decent station?
    Ha ha.

    Did you see the bus station? That killed any enthusiasm for clever redesigns for the station.

    Imagine you are building a station for big coaches. Where do you put it? 90 degree entry to a busy, not especially wide street, obviously. Only one entrance/exit of course. Which is not wide enough for one coach to go in at the same time as one goes out.

    The cherry on the cake is that if a bus driver misjudges his turn and comes in as someone tries to leave, they get stuck by the traffic behind them. Which due to Oxford's no-way* traffic system means that the centre of Oxford locks up surprisingly fast.

    *It's like a one-way system, but less so.
    Being posh, I did not see the bus station. :smiley:
    At least you got to see Landmine College from the train station - which is where the bus station should have gone....
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
    I'll do what I like, thanks very much, and you can ignore it or not


    45k cases is so completely out of whack it does raise suspicions. The previous highest was ~32k back in April 2021
    Worldometers' 7 day average supports your point here Leon. It's doubled in two weeks.
    It looks like chunks of Europe are heading for new lockdowns. Romania has had a curfew for a while, already
    As you said yesterday, though, most places will have restrictions that fall short of 'lockdowns'. There'll be mask mandates and vaxports... but (except in a very few places) no compulsory shutdowns of businesses.

  • Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
    I'll do what I like, thanks very much, and you can ignore it or not


    45k cases is so completely out of whack it does raise suspicions. The previous highest was ~32k back in April 2021
    Worldometers' 7 day average supports your point here Leon. It's doubled in two weeks.
    It looks like chunks of Europe are heading for new lockdowns. Romania has had a curfew for a while, already
    If - big 'if' alert - europe is in lockdown come xmas and we are wassailing like there's no tomorrow then whether by luck or design Johnson will get an uptick.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    edited November 2021
    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    The line the prosecutor took about the last person he shot was utterly utterly comical - the guy has a pistol in his hand and is acting threateningly toward Rittenhouse who is vulnerable on the ground. But because the man with the handgun didn't shoot him 10 feet away, or stand in front of him in a standard 2 hand pistol firing position it entirely nullified Rittenhouse's right to self defence.
    He should never have his AR15 there, but when people

    1) Grab your gun barrel after earlier threatening to kill you
    2) Kick you in the head & go after you with a skateboard being used as a weapon &
    3) Point a gun at you whilst you're lieing on the ground

    You're definitely fearing for your life in all those situations.

    I think his assailants (And they all were) assumed he wouldn't use his gun being a somewhat short kid or something. The prosecution has been dire, particularly on the final shooting.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    I'm not saying Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But it does seem that this is somewhat akin to drunk driving. You are knowingly putting yourself in a position where somebody is dramatically more likely to die as a result of an accident.
    Isn't the situation the other way around? That he had a gun pointed at him first to which he then responded. That at least seems to line up with what had been said in the courtroom. If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it, then it really is self defence. Whether or not he was carrying a gun is irrelevant, at least by American standards.

    My sense is that liberals want this guy to be guilty of whatever crime(s) they ascribe white people in the US. The facts, as are seen in court anyway, are not what they expected. A prosecution witness has said he pointed a gun at the defendant unprovoked, that's basically the end of the case in a legal sense. In a cultural sense it will stoke the flames of the culture wars in the US. The right will say they have been unnecessarily turned into villains when the reality is that one of their own was threatened first. The left will be adamant that this is another example of variable justice for white people vs non white people.

    It's become a no-win situation and America will pay the price regardless of the verdict. Half of them will say this guy is guilty regardless of the witness statement and if it's a guilty verdict the other side will say it's a liberal conspiracy to lock up a white male.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,774
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    The line the prosecutor took about the last person he shot was utterly utterly comical - the guy has a pistol in his hand and is acting threateningly toward Rittenhouse who is vulnerable on the ground. But because the man with the handgun didn't shoot him 10 feet away, or stand in front of him in a standard 2 hand pistol firing position it entirely nullified Rittenhouse's right to self defence.
    He should never have his AR15 there, but when people

    1) Grab your gun barrel after earlier threatening to kill you
    2) Kick you in the head & go after you with a skateboard being used as a weapon &
    3) Point a gun at you whilst you're lieing on the ground

    You're definitely fearing for your life in all those situations.

    I think his assailants (And they all were) assumed he wouldn't use his gun being a somewhat short kid or something. The prosecution has been dire, particularly on the final shooting.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    I'm not saying Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But it does seem that this is somewhat akin to drunk driving. You are knowingly putting yourself in a position where somebody is dramatically more likely to die as a result of an accident.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    Err no. The logical thing is to stop chasing after someone who has just pointed a gun at you 5 seconds earlier.
    Really? You'd turn your back on someone who'd been waving a gun at you?

    Should people be drilled in how to behave if there's a AR15 toting teenager on the street?

    'Whatever you do, don't try and disarm him. He may be scared, and then he's allowed to shoot you."
    Whatever you do, don't try and disarm him.

    Well, err, yes.
    It is also worth noting - of course - that if the armed BLM protestors had shot Rittenhouse when he was waving the AR15, they would also be acting in self defence.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Pompette I wasn't impressed with - South Parade has always been a rather average.

    Haven't tried Two One Five.
    I just wonder what you're comparing Oxford with (then or now) to have such a poor opinion of its restaurant scene.

    Try growing up in Hastings or living in Selby, both of which I have... I can tell you Oxford is a culinary paradise in comparison!

    Not fine dining by any stretch but Browns was an institution back in the 80s - no booking and queues every night to get a table. Those were the days!
    Christ... Browns.... The inedible in search of the gullible..... They did do some good cocktails for a while, though.
    The food was certainly edible and not extortionate. It had an atmosphere that was hard to beat. I have many fond memories of boozy meals there. Went back a few years ago for 'old times' sake'... A very strange experience: the decor is entirely unaltered, the atmosphere completely gone.
    Perhaps you were 2 bottles too sober to enjoy it?

    It is interesting when you go back to places - have they become shit, or did we just grow out of them?
    A bit of both with Browns I suspect. The atmosphere was always great and at the time I thought the food was fine too.

    Now I reflect back, the food was very ordinary by today's standards... but this was the 80s.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,082

    Off topic (like every other post this evening tbf)...

    Is there a simple calculator available online that shows the global warming impact we each have through the choices we make?

    If we could easily get a summary of the impact of our personal choices (e.g. electric car, flying long-haul, solar panels, new boiler, going veggie, etc. etc.) it might help people decide which steps they could take themsleves.

    My assumption is that none of us are going to do everything we possibly could but a simple calculator might make it easy to choose the options that work for us as individuals.

    There are simple (ish) calculators but they won't be as good as a complicated calculator, and the truth is that a lot of your impact will be due to choices beyond your control, or you won't have the information to be able to know.

    For example, you will find calculators mostly use average values for things like flying or train travel, but different planes are more or less efficient, and it makes a pretty big difference whether your train route is electrified or diesel.

    The same applies, but more so, for food. How do you find out what your chicken was fed on? There are massively wide estimates for the carbon impact of foods depending on the animal feed used, or fertilizer, or any number of other factors.

    This is why I think the question of individual action is mostly a dead-end. Government has to take a lead and create the market conditions so that the options businesses provide to consumers will be zero carbon, and then you will be green without noticing.

    This is what is happening with the growth of wind electricity on the grid, and with the transition to electric cars. Hopefully the same will happen with domestic heating and improving standards in agriculture to reduce emissions. And so on, and so forth.

    The best thing you can probably do is to hand write a letter to your MP expressing in your own words why you want them to support things like this.

    In terms of whether an electric car is a better choice than solar panels, etc, I think you really need to run the numbers for your personal circumstances. How much fuel do you use each year in your car that wouldn't be burnt if you went electric and compare that to the energy generated by solar panels.

    And you don't have to go completely veggie. Have fun experimenting with a few extra meatless meals and you might find some that you want to eat because they're tasty, and then it isn't a penance to reduce your carbon emissions.
    Yes, looking at my results, the WWF one is fairly crude. The slightly more detailed one on the Klima App seems to work well, and comes out slightly lower.

    I have not flown and eat meat once or twice a week. It seems the biggest share is from home heating. Perhaps that gas boiler has to go.

    I do think carbon offset has a whiff of Papal Indulgences about it, but the projects on the Klima App seem fairly decent and independently verified.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    The line the prosecutor took about the last person he shot was utterly utterly comical - the guy has a pistol in his hand and is acting threateningly toward Rittenhouse who is vulnerable on the ground. But because the man with the handgun didn't shoot him 10 feet away, or stand in front of him in a standard 2 hand pistol firing position it entirely nullified Rittenhouse's right to self defence.
    He should never have his AR15 there, but when people

    1) Grab your gun barrel after earlier threatening to kill you
    2) Kick you in the head & go after you with a skateboard being used as a weapon &
    3) Point a gun at you whilst you're lieing on the ground

    You're definitely fearing for your life in all those situations.

    I think his assailants (And they all were) assumed he wouldn't use his gun being a somewhat short kid or something. The prosecution has been dire, particularly on the final shooting.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    I'm not saying Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But it does seem that this is somewhat akin to drunk driving. You are knowingly putting yourself in a position where somebody is dramatically more likely to die as a result of an accident.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    Err no. The logical thing is to stop chasing after someone who has just pointed a gun at you 5 seconds earlier.
    Really? You'd turn your back on someone who'd been waving a gun at you?

    Should people be drilled in how to behave if there's a AR15 toting teenager on the street?

    'Whatever you do, don't try and disarm him. He may be scared, and then he's allowed to shoot you."
    Whatever you do, don't try and disarm him.

    Well, err, yes.
    Phone some friends. People like -

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi_QF5Jtuug
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    45,416 cases in Germany, 244 deaths (both higher than the UK) - as per Worldometer

    Really surging there


    Is this a statistical freak, or gremlin, or something else? Because 45k cases is way higher than anything expected, and by far the biggest daily number ever reported in Germany

    Could you please stop picking days of reporting from Germany.

    For whatever reason, their reporting is very very spiky. So post 7 day averages.

    Those are bad enough, at the moment.
    I'll do what I like, thanks very much, and you can ignore it or not


    45k cases is so completely out of whack it does raise suspicions. The previous highest was ~32k back in April 2021
    Worldometers' 7 day average supports your point here Leon. It's doubled in two weeks.
    It looks like chunks of Europe are heading for new lockdowns. Romania has had a curfew for a while, already
    As you said yesterday, though, most places will have restrictions that fall short of 'lockdowns'. There'll be mask mandates and vaxports... but (except in a very few places) no compulsory shutdowns of businesses.

    Yes, I still think that is the likelier outcome.

    However, remember how close the UK got to new lockdowns. Remember Plan B, Starmer whining, all the wanker-lefty doctors and iSAGE doing their shtick. LOCKDOWN NOW AND FOREVER

    I was quite surprised HMG held their ground, and I was pleased they did

    Will that be repeated across Europe? Lots of those countries have already gone further than the UK- they have vaxports and 2G and all that. How many days of alarmingly spiking cases can they endure, before the psychological pressure to lockdown "properly" becomes irresistible?

    That's one reason I pointed to the German figure today. Yes it is clearly a statistical outlier but you only need a few of those to freak people out.... and then they don't become outliers, anyway. They are a trend
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Pompette I wasn't impressed with - South Parade has always been a rather average.

    Haven't tried Two One Five.
    I just wonder what you're comparing Oxford with (then or now) to have such a poor opinion of its restaurant scene.

    Try growing up in Hastings or living in Selby, both of which I have... I can tell you Oxford is a culinary paradise in comparison!

    Not fine dining by any stretch but Browns was an institution back in the 80s - no booking and queues every night to get a table. Those were the days!
    Christ... Browns.... The inedible in search of the gullible..... They did do some good cocktails for a while, though.
    The food was certainly edible and not extortionate. It had an atmosphere that was hard to beat. I have many fond memories of boozy meals there. Went back a few years ago for 'old times' sake'... A very strange experience: the decor is entirely unaltered, the atmosphere completely gone.
    Perhaps you were 2 bottles too sober to enjoy it?

    It is interesting when you go back to places - have they become shit, or did we just grow out of them?
    A bit of both with Browns I suspect. The atmosphere was always great and at the time I thought the food was fine too.

    Now I reflect back, the food was very ordinary by today's standards... but this was the 80s.
    I remember that even drunk and in my 20s they managed to cook a burger to death. To the point I couldn't finish it.

    A kebab from the vans was better. Or seemed that way.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    The line the prosecutor took about the last person he shot was utterly utterly comical - the guy has a pistol in his hand and is acting threateningly toward Rittenhouse who is vulnerable on the ground. But because the man with the handgun didn't shoot him 10 feet away, or stand in front of him in a standard 2 hand pistol firing position it entirely nullified Rittenhouse's right to self defence.
    He should never have his AR15 there, but when people

    1) Grab your gun barrel after earlier threatening to kill you
    2) Kick you in the head & go after you with a skateboard being used as a weapon &
    3) Point a gun at you whilst you're lieing on the ground

    You're definitely fearing for your life in all those situations.

    I think his assailants (And they all were) assumed he wouldn't use his gun being a somewhat short kid or something. The prosecution has been dire, particularly on the final shooting.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    I'm not saying Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But it does seem that this is somewhat akin to drunk driving. You are knowingly putting yourself in a position where somebody is dramatically more likely to die as a result of an accident.
    Isn't the situation the other way around? That he had a gun pointed at him first to which he then responded. That at least seems to line up with what had been said in the courtroom. If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it, then it really is self defence. Whether or not he was carrying a gun is irrelevant, at least by American standards.

    My sense is that liberals want this guy to be guilty of whatever crime(s) they ascribe white people in the US. The facts, as are seen in court anyway, are not what they expected. A prosecution witness has said he pointed a gun at the defendant unprovoked, that's basically the end of the case in a legal sense. In a cultural sense it will stoke the flames of the culture wars in the US. The right will say they have been unnecessarily turned into villains when the reality is that one of their own was threatened first. The left will be adamant that this is another example of variable justice for white people vs non white people.

    It's become a no-win situation and America will pay the price regardless of the verdict. Half of them will say this guy is guilty regardless of the witness statement and if it's a guilty verdict the other side will say it's a liberal conspiracy to lock up a white male.
    I understand that the man who pointed a pistol at him was the third one he shot. In other words, he'd already shot two people before the pistol was pointed. If that is accurate, "unprovoked" is a word that doesn't belong in your description.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Pompette I wasn't impressed with - South Parade has always been a rather average.

    Haven't tried Two One Five.
    I just wonder what you're comparing Oxford with (then or now) to have such a poor opinion of its restaurant scene.

    Try growing up in Hastings or living in Selby, both of which I have... I can tell you Oxford is a culinary paradise in comparison!

    Not fine dining by any stretch but Browns was an institution back in the 80s - no booking and queues every night to get a table. Those were the days!
    Christ... Browns.... The inedible in search of the gullible..... They did do some good cocktails for a while, though.
    The food was certainly edible and not extortionate. It had an atmosphere that was hard to beat. I have many fond memories of boozy meals there. Went back a few years ago for 'old times' sake'... A very strange experience: the decor is entirely unaltered, the atmosphere completely gone.
    Perhaps you were 2 bottles too sober to enjoy it?

    It is interesting when you go back to places - have they become shit, or did we just grow out of them?
    A bit of both with Browns I suspect. The atmosphere was always great and at the time I thought the food was fine too.

    Now I reflect back, the food was very ordinary by today's standards... but this was the 80s.
    I remember enjoying Browns around 1989 or something. In fact they even had a branch in Soho

    Looking back it was almost certainly mediocre brasserie food. But I do recall a highly boisterous atmosphere
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049
    El Rincon is a welcome addition on South Parade....Mamma Mia's is reliably pretty good,....A nice Artisan bakery has emerged too on South Parade that serves pretty damn good oven baked pizzas, and Alfonso's Ice Cream cart at the weekend is quite delightful. And if you venture down south, the Wilding on Clarendon Street is superb, and there is a wonderful wine bar on the corner... The Freud is back in Jericho and as cool as fuck

    Browns (Oxford) is allegedly Boris Johnson's favourite restaurant....so a no go really....


  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    Off topic (like every other post this evening tbf)...

    Is there a simple calculator available online that shows the global warming impact we each have through the choices we make?

    If we could easily get a summary of the impact of our personal choices (e.g. electric car, flying long-haul, solar panels, new boiler, going veggie, etc. etc.) it might help people decide which steps they could take themsleves.

    My assumption is that none of us are going to do everything we possibly could but a simple calculator might make it easy to choose the options that work for us as individuals.

    There are quite a few apps and online carbon calculators. The WWF has one. Some seem to be pushing carbon offset sales but I think the calculations themselves are OK.

    My carbon footprint on the WWF is 9 tons per year, slightly less than the national average that they cite, and I haven't flown anywhere, and have an electric car and we'll insulated house. It isn't going to be easy going lower.

    https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/results/
    11 tonnes. I live in a shockingly badly insulated house.

    I lied about my flights on the survey. I haven't flown in the last year, but I counted backward from March 2020 so included 1 flight in the year to that point.
    Thanks @Foxy that's just the sort of calculator I was looking for.

    9.19 tonnes for me. (Disappointed it didn't ask me about our air source heat pump though!)
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Meghan Markle - Looks like recollections have varied? ;)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,276
    Farooq said:

    Foxy said:

    Off topic (like every other post this evening tbf)...

    Is there a simple calculator available online that shows the global warming impact we each have through the choices we make?

    If we could easily get a summary of the impact of our personal choices (e.g. electric car, flying long-haul, solar panels, new boiler, going veggie, etc. etc.) it might help people decide which steps they could take themsleves.

    My assumption is that none of us are going to do everything we possibly could but a simple calculator might make it easy to choose the options that work for us as individuals.

    There are quite a few apps and online carbon calculators. The WWF has one. Some seem to be pushing carbon offset sales but I think the calculations themselves are OK.

    My carbon footprint on the WWF is 9 tons per year, slightly less than the national average that they cite, and I haven't flown anywhere, and have an electric car and we'll insulated house. It isn't going to be easy going lower.

    https://footprint.wwf.org.uk/#/results/
    11 tonnes. I live in a shockingly badly insulated house.

    I lied about my flights on the survey. I haven't flown in the last year, but I counted backward from March 2020 so included 1 flight in the year to that point.
    14 tonnes for me, actually not as bad as I thought

    The travel gets me (even in the Year of Covid). If it weren't for that I'd have a surprisingly light-footed impact on this green earth
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    tyson said:

    El Rincon is a welcome addition on South Parade....Mamma Mia's is reliably pretty good,....A nice Artisan bakery has emerged too on South Parade that serves pretty damn good oven baked pizzas, and Alfonso's Ice Cream cart at the weekend is quite delightful. And if you venture down south, the Wilding on Clarendon Street is superb, and there is a wonderful wine bar on the corner... The Freud is back in Jericho and as cool as fuck

    Browns (Oxford) is allegedly Boris Johnson's favourite restaurant....so a no go really....

    Aw f*ck - you've completely ruined it for me now. He was probably in there when we were regulars (there were often some loud hooray henrys leering over the waitresses).
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    The line the prosecutor took about the last person he shot was utterly utterly comical - the guy has a pistol in his hand and is acting threateningly toward Rittenhouse who is vulnerable on the ground. But because the man with the handgun didn't shoot him 10 feet away, or stand in front of him in a standard 2 hand pistol firing position it entirely nullified Rittenhouse's right to self defence.
    He should never have his AR15 there, but when people

    1) Grab your gun barrel after earlier threatening to kill you
    2) Kick you in the head & go after you with a skateboard being used as a weapon &
    3) Point a gun at you whilst you're lieing on the ground

    You're definitely fearing for your life in all those situations.

    I think his assailants (And they all were) assumed he wouldn't use his gun being a somewhat short kid or something. The prosecution has been dire, particularly on the final shooting.
    But here's the thing. Someone is waving a gun at you. Isn't the logical thing - to protect yourself - to grab the gun barrel?

    I'm not saying Rittenhouse is guilty of murder. But it does seem that this is somewhat akin to drunk driving. You are knowingly putting yourself in a position where somebody is dramatically more likely to die as a result of an accident.
    Isn't the situation the other way around? That he had a gun pointed at him first to which he then responded. That at least seems to line up with what had been said in the courtroom. If that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it, then it really is self defence. Whether or not he was carrying a gun is irrelevant, at least by American standards.

    My sense is that liberals want this guy to be guilty of whatever crime(s) they ascribe white people in the US. The facts, as are seen in court anyway, are not what they expected. A prosecution witness has said he pointed a gun at the defendant unprovoked, that's basically the end of the case in a legal sense. In a cultural sense it will stoke the flames of the culture wars in the US. The right will say they have been unnecessarily turned into villains when the reality is that one of their own was threatened first. The left will be adamant that this is another example of variable justice for white people vs non white people.

    It's become a no-win situation and America will pay the price regardless of the verdict. Half of them will say this guy is guilty regardless of the witness statement and if it's a guilty verdict the other side will say it's a liberal conspiracy to lock up a white male.
    I understand that the man who pointed a pistol at him was the third one he shot. In other words, he'd already shot two people before the pistol was pointed. If that is accurate, "unprovoked" is a word that doesn't belong in your description.
    Again, none of us were there and America is a different place. Three guys come up to you, one has a gun that is pointed at you. Even though you have done nothing to aggravate them (again this is as per the witness testimony). You're also a bit of an arsehole (maybe more than a bit).

    You might not like the answer but ultimately (and this is likely the end result of this court case) it's a situation of self defence. If he wasn't a massive cunt then the people wouldn't have died, for sure, but he is and they are, however, being a cunt isn't against the law.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Pompette I wasn't impressed with - South Parade has always been a rather average.

    Haven't tried Two One Five.
    I just wonder what you're comparing Oxford with (then or now) to have such a poor opinion of its restaurant scene.

    Try growing up in Hastings or living in Selby, both of which I have... I can tell you Oxford is a culinary paradise in comparison!

    Not fine dining by any stretch but Browns was an institution back in the 80s - no booking and queues every night to get a table. Those were the days!
    Christ... Browns.... The inedible in search of the gullible..... They did do some good cocktails for a while, though.
    The food was certainly edible and not extortionate. It had an atmosphere that was hard to beat. I have many fond memories of boozy meals there. Went back a few years ago for 'old times' sake'... A very strange experience: the decor is entirely unaltered, the atmosphere completely gone.
    Perhaps you were 2 bottles too sober to enjoy it?

    It is interesting when you go back to places - have they become shit, or did we just grow out of them?
    A bit of both with Browns I suspect. The atmosphere was always great and at the time I thought the food was fine too.

    Now I reflect back, the food was very ordinary by today's standards... but this was the 80s.
    I remember enjoying Browns around 1989 or something. In fact they even had a branch in Soho

    Looking back it was almost certainly mediocre brasserie food. But I do recall a highly boisterous atmosphere
    You've nailed it succinctly. (You should become a writer!)
  • tysontyson Posts: 6,049

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Pompette I wasn't impressed with - South Parade has always been a rather average.

    Haven't tried Two One Five.
    I just wonder what you're comparing Oxford with (then or now) to have such a poor opinion of its restaurant scene.

    Try growing up in Hastings or living in Selby, both of which I have... I can tell you Oxford is a culinary paradise in comparison!

    Not fine dining by any stretch but Browns was an institution back in the 80s - no booking and queues every night to get a table. Those were the days!
    Christ... Browns.... The inedible in search of the gullible..... They did do some good cocktails for a while, though.
    The food was certainly edible and not extortionate. It had an atmosphere that was hard to beat. I have many fond memories of boozy meals there. Went back a few years ago for 'old times' sake'... A very strange experience: the decor is entirely unaltered, the atmosphere completely gone.
    Perhaps you were 2 bottles too sober to enjoy it?

    It is interesting when you go back to places - have they become shit, or did we just grow out of them?
    A bit of both with Browns I suspect. The atmosphere was always great and at the time I thought the food was fine too.

    Now I reflect back, the food was very ordinary by today's standards... but this was the 80s.
    I remember enjoying Browns around 1989 or something. In fact they even had a branch in Soho

    Looking back it was almost certainly mediocre brasserie food. But I do recall a highly boisterous atmosphere
    You've nailed it succinctly. (You should become a writer!)
    Maybe???

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    TimS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Fox hunting is weird

    Not really. For me it's about riding a horse across country *on a wholly unpredictable route*. The trouble with the current pretendy substitute is that you know in advance that the route has been planned by a human being, with all the elf n safety considerations that entails. Nobody goes hunting to "see an animal ripped to pieces" any more than they eat beef to celebrate a bullock being killed in an abattoir.
    You can ride a horse across the countryside without ripping foxes to shreds you know.
    I would have thought it impossible to miss the point I was making, while still having the ability to connect to and post on the internet. Thank you for surprising me.

    Un pre dict ab le.

    5 syllables.
    The point you were making was that you wish to make a mess of other people’s land without any responsibility purely in the name of “fun”.
    I thought you aspired to be a lawyer? Do you genuinely think that hunts cross country without the consent of the landowner? How do you think that would happen?
    “Consent of the landowner” aye of course
    Jesus. Before a day's hunting a hunt rings each and every landowner in the area, and keeps off land on which it does not have permission to go.

    How else do you think it works? Is there a hunting exemption in the law of trespass? Where?
    Care to answer my point?
    Are you a gallowgate sockpuppet? Because I'm not seeing a point in your own name here
    No, I asked about the pets killed by foxhounds that clearly do not have permission to be where they kill the pets.
    For example this at a cat sanctuary:

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cats-hunt-fox-hounds-deer-sussex-hastings-celia-hammond-a8151911.html
    I find it useful to consider what would happen if a purely working class or chav group came along with dogs and killed someone's cat, or trashed their crop and lawn.
    I'm sure the feds would understand that accidents happen
    They do. Consider the history of Oxford University dining clubs, and compare the result with what the magistrates would say if a dozen skinheads from the Cowley housing schemes came into a nice Oxon restaurant and then trashed the place. Obviously very understanding, at least until recent years, though.
    I grew up in Oxford during the 80s and 90s

    - There were nearly no posh eateries. There are a few now, but that is post 2000.
    - It's a small town. The bar staff all work the different places and know each other.
    - When the Bullingdon stories first became a thing, when Cameron became Opposition leader, journalists started offering 5 figures for evidence.

    So either, the stories were true and a group of university students trashed non-existent posh restaurants and then covered it up so that no-one ever said "I was there". Despite the offer of serious sums of money.

    Or a bunch of students threw some bread rolls around in a curry shop and the tales got... enlarged.

    Oxford is a city of over 150,000 people, not a small town
    More like it’s a small town of over 150,000 people. Or a small town surrounded by fields ringed by a donut of 150,000 people.
    An urban area of 150,000 people is on no definition a small town.

    A small town is typically a market town of less than 50,000 people, not 3 times that.

    Oxford is a city on any definition, confirmed by the fact it has a cathedral and 2 universities too
    It's a lot of housing, sure.

    In terms of places you go out to in the evening - a few small areas, and you can cover most of them on foot, unless you are heading up the Cowley Road or something.

    Have you ever been there?
    I spend half my time there alongside Epping as my wife works there, indeed I am there now in Summertown which has plenty of high quality eateries
    High quality? In Summertown? You are having a laugh.

    Or do you class the "New Dancing Dragon Bar" as high end?
    Two One Five, Pompette?
    Pompette I wasn't impressed with - South Parade has always been a rather average.

    Haven't tried Two One Five.
    I just wonder what you're comparing Oxford with (then or now) to have such a poor opinion of its restaurant scene.

    Try growing up in Hastings or living in Selby, both of which I have... I can tell you Oxford is a culinary paradise in comparison!

    Not fine dining by any stretch but Browns was an institution back in the 80s - no booking and queues every night to get a table. Those were the days!
    Christ... Browns.... The inedible in search of the gullible..... They did do some good cocktails for a while, though.
    The food was certainly edible and not extortionate. It had an atmosphere that was hard to beat. I have many fond memories of boozy meals there. Went back a few years ago for 'old times' sake'... A very strange experience: the decor is entirely unaltered, the atmosphere completely gone.
    Perhaps you were 2 bottles too sober to enjoy it?

    It is interesting when you go back to places - have they become shit, or did we just grow out of them?
    A bit of both with Browns I suspect. The atmosphere was always great and at the time I thought the food was fine too.

    Now I reflect back, the food was very ordinary by today's standards... but this was the 80s.
    I remember that even drunk and in my 20s they managed to cook a burger to death. To the point I couldn't finish it.

    A kebab from the vans was better. Or seemed that way.

    You're misremembering imo - you could ask for the burgers rare if you liked (this was pre-BSE remember) and they generally got their 'doneness' there ot there abouts.
  • Brilliant film by Nick Broomfield just finished on BBC4 about his relationship with his father (an important photographer in his own right which I didn't know) plus other important stuff. Intimate is such a whored out word but it's so intimate it hurts. Recommended.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,840
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    Aslan said:

    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    TimT said:

    I have not been following the Rittenhouse case, but after reading the NPR (not exactly a bastion of right-wing, gun-toting, Trumpism), I'd be gobsmacked if he's found guilty.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/11/10/1054313132/kyle-rittenhouse-testimony-kenosha

    In the land of the gun toting free, this will be self-defense.

    But he went there, with a rifle, into a riot to (in his own words) “protect property”. And now people are dead & he’s in court hoping to avoid a life sentence.

    What he actually did was make a bad situation worse.
    He’s an irresponsible little shit who killed people.
    What the jury makes of that is a judgment on them.
    Jury selection basically struck off anyone who says that racism is a problem.

    So all but one potential black juror was struck off.
    I don't understand how his case for self defence for killing an unarmed man was that the unarmed man could have grabbed the tactical rifle that he illegally brought to the protest.
    Some of his assailants were also armed
    If a black man went to small town in West Virginia packing an assault rifle, and shot an armed white West Virginia, I'm fairly sure that that "self defence" argument wouldn't hold up in Court.
    Probably not, though OJ was a black man who managed to be found not guilty on a very elastic defence on the evidence
    Never suspected you were intersectionalist.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,281
    Period Browns features in Restless by William Boyd - a great spy thriller, worth a read.
This discussion has been closed.