I've never seen DIe Hard, but shouldn't it be obvious whether or not it's a Christmas film from the presence or otherwise of things like Christmas trees and Santa Claus?
However it was released in July as a Summer Blockbuster.
The Christmas party is there to give the story plausibility...
Although it’s a massive stretch because the party is staged on … Christmas Eve. What company stages its works party on 24 December FFS? A massive plot hole in what is an otherwise superb (Christmas) film.
In America only Christmas Day is a holiday, so a party Christmas Eve plausible.
Not that plausibility is required in Christmas productions. Scrooge bought his turkey for the Cratchitts on Christmas Day itself
Christmas Eve isn't a holiday here. In living memory, nor was Christmas day in Scotland
His presidential campaign never recovered from the moment when he tripped over in front of the cameras.
No, he did not have the charisma and oratory to win the presidency and beat Bill Clinton although in 1996 he was younger than Biden and Trump were in 2020.
Dole was a highly effective Congressman though and adept at getting legislation and deals through the Senate
They've done this sort of thing before. A few years ago, I was listening to the F1 whilst driving. They changed sport, and said the F1 moved to 5 Live Extra. I tuned to 5LE, which was playing another sport. After a few minutes, 5LE said the F1 was on the main 5 Live. I tuned back, only for another sport. Neither channel had the F1 on, and both were saying it was on the other channel...
(I heard a funny anecdote once about BBC swapping channels...)
Watch it on sky? Who wants to listen to F1 on the radio??
Some of us have lives.
And are too tight to pay for Sky.
I'm not too tight to pay for Sky. But I am too tight to pay for a TV license.
TfL has been in financial trouble for years; Covid has just brought all the troubles home to roost. However: Khan's fare freeze was a stupid electoral bung, as many people said at the time, and worsened a bad problem.
Try to excuse Sadiq as much as you like: the fare freeze was a cast-iron sign that he was uninterested in the finances of TfL - as he thought the government would have to bail them out.
Incidentally, the whole situation was made worse by TfL's greed in trying to hoover up as much transport in and around the capital as they could get: e.g. the creation of London Overground.
The issue pre-Covid was the network, hampered in some places by antiquated track and signalling, was running at capacity. Trains were full and there simply wasn't the capacity to run more trains over some parts of the system because the signalling couldn't handle it.
Many cities have co-ordinated passenger transport systems - bringing some of the rail lines into TfL was generally and genuinely welcomed at the time.
The problem now is a third of the passengers have gone - the Government insisted in 2020 as a condition of bail out all services were maintained so you had empty tubes going up and down the lines. TfL have begun to reduce capacity discretely by not replacing drivers who leave - fewer drivers means more gaps in the service whether they are called "cancellations" or not.
If Sunak wants to look "tough" and reduce the subsidy, the options will either be a big Council Tax rise (which any future Conservative Mayor will have to retain) or a reduction in services (up to 10% of buses could be axed) or the complete mothballing of one or more lines (the Bakerloo, for a number of reasons, is the obvious target but even then maintenance will have to continue so it's not a complete saving).
So you're saying the problem pre-Covid was outdated infrastructure. If that was the case, the answer was simple: invest in the infrastructure - i.e. spend - rather than have a massive electoral bung in the form of a fare freeze, and make matters worse.
TfL have been improving infrastructure - the issue is those projects take years and cost money. I think the improvements to the Metropolitan line took 15 years from start to finish.
Stodge opined that the network was hampered in some places by antiquated track and signalling. It needed investment. Yes, they have been improving it - although not as much as they could - and they could have done more on that issue if it had not been for the stupid electoral bribe of a fare freeze.
They've done this sort of thing before. A few years ago, I was listening to the F1 whilst driving. They changed sport, and said the F1 moved to 5 Live Extra. I tuned to 5LE, which was playing another sport. After a few minutes, 5LE said the F1 was on the main 5 Live. I tuned back, only for another sport. Neither channel had the F1 on, and both were saying it was on the other channel...
(I heard a funny anecdote once about BBC swapping channels...)
Watch it on sky? Who wants to listen to F1 on the radio??
Some of us have lives.
And are too tight to pay for Sky.
I'm not too tight to pay for Sky. But I am too tight to pay for a TV license.
I know others differ, but I get a massive amount from my TV licence. Heck, I probably listen to three or four hours of BBC podcast content a week alone.
(Yes, I know I don't need a TV licence for that - but it's all paid for by it.)
In entertainment terms, it's blooming great value for me. Although, as I've said passim, the BBC's funding model is utterly borken in the long term.
TfL has been in financial trouble for years; Covid has just brought all the troubles home to roost. However: Khan's fare freeze was a stupid electoral bung, as many people said at the time, and worsened a bad problem.
Try to excuse Sadiq as much as you like: the fare freeze was a cast-iron sign that he was uninterested in the finances of TfL - as he thought the government would have to bail them out.
Incidentally, the whole situation was made worse by TfL's greed in trying to hoover up as much transport in and around the capital as they could get: e.g. the creation of London Overground.
The issue pre-Covid was the network, hampered in some places by antiquated track and signalling, was running at capacity. Trains were full and there simply wasn't the capacity to run more trains over some parts of the system because the signalling couldn't handle it.
Many cities have co-ordinated passenger transport systems - bringing some of the rail lines into TfL was generally and genuinely welcomed at the time.
The problem now is a third of the passengers have gone - the Government insisted in 2020 as a condition of bail out all services were maintained so you had empty tubes going up and down the lines. TfL have begun to reduce capacity discretely by not replacing drivers who leave - fewer drivers means more gaps in the service whether they are called "cancellations" or not.
If Sunak wants to look "tough" and reduce the subsidy, the options will either be a big Council Tax rise (which any future Conservative Mayor will have to retain) or a reduction in services (up to 10% of buses could be axed) or the complete mothballing of one or more lines (the Bakerloo, for a number of reasons, is the obvious target but even then maintenance will have to continue so it's not a complete saving).
So you're saying the problem pre-Covid was outdated infrastructure. If that was the case, the answer was simple: invest in the infrastructure - i.e. spend - rather than have a massive electoral bung in the form of a fare freeze, and make matters worse.
TfL have been improving infrastructure - the issue is those projects take years and cost money. I think the improvements to the Metropolitan line took 15 years from start to finish.
Stodge opined that the network was hampered in some places by antiquated track and signalling. It needed investment. Yes, they have been improving it - although not as much as they could - and they could have done more on that issue if it had not been for the stupid electoral bribe of a fare freeze.
I would head to London Reconnections - from memory the timescales for projects are such that it's only now (in 2021) that projects are being delayed because of the reduced revenue from the fare freeze.
I've never seen DIe Hard, but shouldn't it be obvious whether or not it's a Christmas film from the presence or otherwise of things like Christmas trees and Santa Claus?
The key thing is first to define what is a Christmas movie. Without that, everything else is just opinion.
Schumacher costs another British driver an F1 title?
Is this a 1 or 2 stop race? I don't remember seeing the suggested strategy
1.5 stop race.
The safety car is going to help Mercedes, I think.
I fear the tyres might not last if there's no more safety car incidents.
They can probably drive to the end from here on the hards.
As could Max, but Max is now ahead of Lewis.
To be honest though the obvious play was to do the opposite of whatever the car in front did. You can see why Lewis pitted because previous crashes didn't result in barrier damage red flagging the race.
Mail: Boris Johnson is today facing more pressure to explain events at Downing Street Christmas parties last year after his deputy admitted any 'formal' events would have breached Covid laws.
Dominic Raab made the admission after Labour MPs demanded the Metropolitan Police probe two gatherings in November and December last year.
Both are said to have seen 40 or 50 people crammed 'cheek by jowl' in an inside room, and one is reported to have included a secret Santa and festive quiz.
Marr displayed the rule and it seems for it to be illegal it would have to be a party , not a few drinks at the end of the day in a work environment
I doubt we will ever know
I think we already know. There's a reason why every government spokesperson is parroting the same line and refusing to say any more.
As a matter of interest did you watch Marr and read the definition and understand just why this may well have been legal
Eating, drinking, and playing party games isn't ever going to come under the definition of a gathering that is primarily for business reasons, is it?
You spent an entire year telling us all what a charlatan Boris was. Don't start defending him now.
I am not part of a lynch mob and you have not answered the question
What proof do you have that this was illegal and if so provide it
Indeed neither Boris or Carrie were present
"Secret Santa", quiz, drinks and food and not working, indeed cramming into rooms to get pished, sounds awfully like a party. Like Dilyn sounds like a dog.
To claim it wasn't a party is about as honest as to claim Dilyn is a cat. Especially if everyone else has been forbidden to have parties.
@Big_G_NorthWales is defending the indefensible, and he knows it. He would be apoplectic if it was Drakefords office party...
I doing no such thing
If it was a party it was illegal, if it was a working environment at the end of the day it is not under the definition showed by Marr
It's one rule for them, another for us plebs. Time after time.
But you do not know the circumstances of this party and yet shout guilty
Innocent until proved guilty used to be the law in this land, seems some have reversed it
They had a party, at a time when No 10 - those people - had forbidden the world to have parties. Can you not see that pleading legal technicalities only makes it worse?
Surprisingly poor show from Big G. Genuinely taken aback.
Mail: Boris Johnson is today facing more pressure to explain events at Downing Street Christmas parties last year after his deputy admitted any 'formal' events would have breached Covid laws.
Dominic Raab made the admission after Labour MPs demanded the Metropolitan Police probe two gatherings in November and December last year.
Both are said to have seen 40 or 50 people crammed 'cheek by jowl' in an inside room, and one is reported to have included a secret Santa and festive quiz.
Marr displayed the rule and it seems for it to be illegal it would have to be a party , not a few drinks at the end of the day in a work environment
I doubt we will ever know
I think we already know. There's a reason why every government spokesperson is parroting the same line and refusing to say any more.
As a matter of interest did you watch Marr and read the definition and understand just why this may well have been legal
Eating, drinking, and playing party games isn't ever going to come under the definition of a gathering that is primarily for business reasons, is it?
You spent an entire year telling us all what a charlatan Boris was. Don't start defending him now.
I am not part of a lynch mob and you have not answered the question
What proof do you have that this was illegal and if so provide it
Indeed neither Boris or Carrie were present
"Secret Santa", quiz, drinks and food and not working, indeed cramming into rooms to get pished, sounds awfully like a party. Like Dilyn sounds like a dog.
To claim it wasn't a party is about as honest as to claim Dilyn is a cat. Especially if everyone else has been forbidden to have parties.
@Big_G_NorthWales is defending the indefensible, and he knows it. He would be apoplectic if it was Drakefords office party...
I doing no such thing
If it was a party it was illegal, if it was a working environment at the end of the day it is not under the definition showed by Marr
It's one rule for them, another for us plebs. Time after time.
Yup that’s about the size of it. At the time this lot were toasting the dodgy procurement contracts they’d arranged for their mates, some of us were in a very dark place indeed due to the enforced absence of human contact. Not to go all Keegan on you but I’d love it love it if some of them saw the inside of a cell.
It seems to me that Mercedes were under no obligation to pit when they did, were they? And the knew a red flag was a risk.
It seems they took a gamble and it backfired. Oops.
Pitting Lewis was obvious. Pitting Valteri was stupid given the bigger picture. Speed of restart does not removely justify a red flag and taints this season even more.
Frankly Lewis needs to be P1 or make sure they both crash on the first corner of restart, otherwise game over.
TfL has been in financial trouble for years; Covid has just brought all the troubles home to roost. However: Khan's fare freeze was a stupid electoral bung, as many people said at the time, and worsened a bad problem.
Try to excuse Sadiq as much as you like: the fare freeze was a cast-iron sign that he was uninterested in the finances of TfL - as he thought the government would have to bail them out.
Incidentally, the whole situation was made worse by TfL's greed in trying to hoover up as much transport in and around the capital as they could get: e.g. the creation of London Overground.
The issue pre-Covid was the network, hampered in some places by antiquated track and signalling, was running at capacity. Trains were full and there simply wasn't the capacity to run more trains over some parts of the system because the signalling couldn't handle it.
Many cities have co-ordinated passenger transport systems - bringing some of the rail lines into TfL was generally and genuinely welcomed at the time.
The problem now is a third of the passengers have gone - the Government insisted in 2020 as a condition of bail out all services were maintained so you had empty tubes going up and down the lines. TfL have begun to reduce capacity discretely by not replacing drivers who leave - fewer drivers means more gaps in the service whether they are called "cancellations" or not.
If Sunak wants to look "tough" and reduce the subsidy, the options will either be a big Council Tax rise (which any future Conservative Mayor will have to retain) or a reduction in services (up to 10% of buses could be axed) or the complete mothballing of one or more lines (the Bakerloo, for a number of reasons, is the obvious target but even then maintenance will have to continue so it's not a complete saving).
So you're saying the problem pre-Covid was outdated infrastructure. If that was the case, the answer was simple: invest in the infrastructure - i.e. spend - rather than have a massive electoral bung in the form of a fare freeze, and make matters worse.
TfL have been improving infrastructure - the issue is those projects take years and cost money. I think the improvements to the Metropolitan line took 15 years from start to finish.
Stodge opined that the network was hampered in some places by antiquated track and signalling. It needed investment. Yes, they have been improving it - although not as much as they could - and they could have done more on that issue if it had not been for the stupid electoral bribe of a fare freeze.
I would head to London Reconnections - from memory the timescales for projects are such that it's only now (in 2021) that projects are being delayed because of the reduced revenue from the fare freeze.
As with the main rail network, there are three main forms of infrastructure investment: *) Maintenance. This is the day-to-day maintenance work, the bread-and-butter work. *) Renewals. This means renewing life-expired infrastructure. *) Enhancements. This is work that adds new capabilities; e.g. a new signalling system, or a new line.
Maintenance and renewals can be planned and implemented fairly quickly. Enhancements are the things that can take significant time.
They've done this sort of thing before. A few years ago, I was listening to the F1 whilst driving. They changed sport, and said the F1 moved to 5 Live Extra. I tuned to 5LE, which was playing another sport. After a few minutes, 5LE said the F1 was on the main 5 Live. I tuned back, only for another sport. Neither channel had the F1 on, and both were saying it was on the other channel...
(I heard a funny anecdote once about BBC swapping channels...)
Watch it on sky? Who wants to listen to F1 on the radio??
Some of us have lives.
And are too tight to pay for Sky.
I'm not too tight to pay for Sky. But I am too tight to pay for a TV license.
I know others differ, but I get a massive amount from my TV licence. Heck, I probably listen to three or four hours of BBC podcast content a week alone.
(Yes, I know I don't need a TV licence for that - but it's all paid for by it.)
In entertainment terms, it's blooming great value for me. Although, as I've said passim, the BBC's funding model is utterly borken in the long term.
And I get a massive amount from *your* TV licence too, because I don't watch telly but get my news and weather from bbc online plus hours a day of radio.
Mail: Boris Johnson is today facing more pressure to explain events at Downing Street Christmas parties last year after his deputy admitted any 'formal' events would have breached Covid laws.
Dominic Raab made the admission after Labour MPs demanded the Metropolitan Police probe two gatherings in November and December last year.
Both are said to have seen 40 or 50 people crammed 'cheek by jowl' in an inside room, and one is reported to have included a secret Santa and festive quiz.
Marr displayed the rule and it seems for it to be illegal it would have to be a party , not a few drinks at the end of the day in a work environment
I doubt we will ever know
I think we already know. There's a reason why every government spokesperson is parroting the same line and refusing to say any more.
As a matter of interest did you watch Marr and read the definition and understand just why this may well have been legal
Eating, drinking, and playing party games isn't ever going to come under the definition of a gathering that is primarily for business reasons, is it?
You spent an entire year telling us all what a charlatan Boris was. Don't start defending him now.
I am not part of a lynch mob and you have not answered the question
What proof do you have that this was illegal and if so provide it
Indeed neither Boris or Carrie were present
"Secret Santa", quiz, drinks and food and not working, indeed cramming into rooms to get pished, sounds awfully like a party. Like Dilyn sounds like a dog.
To claim it wasn't a party is about as honest as to claim Dilyn is a cat. Especially if everyone else has been forbidden to have parties.
@Big_G_NorthWales is defending the indefensible, and he knows it. He would be apoplectic if it was Drakefords office party...
I doing no such thing
If it was a party it was illegal, if it was a working environment at the end of the day it is not under the definition showed by Marr
It's one rule for them, another for us plebs. Time after time.
But you do not know the circumstances of this party and yet shout guilty
Innocent until proved guilty used to be the law in this land, seems some have reversed it
They had a party, at a time when No 10 - those people - had forbidden the world to have parties. Can you not see that pleading legal technicalities only makes it worse?
If you're blaming them for finding out the details of the rules and acting within them when you couldn't be bothered to find out the details of the rules, aren't you really just angry at yourself and you're projecting it onto them?
They've done this sort of thing before. A few years ago, I was listening to the F1 whilst driving. They changed sport, and said the F1 moved to 5 Live Extra. I tuned to 5LE, which was playing another sport. After a few minutes, 5LE said the F1 was on the main 5 Live. I tuned back, only for another sport. Neither channel had the F1 on, and both were saying it was on the other channel...
(I heard a funny anecdote once about BBC swapping channels...)
Watch it on sky? Who wants to listen to F1 on the radio??
Some of us have lives.
And are too tight to pay for Sky.
I never understand this argument. If you are a big F1 fan, it’s only about £30 a month to subscribe to Sky. That’s like five pints a month for all the sport. I’m not on commission but it seems to me to be a trifling sum so you can actually watch the races/matches.
They've done this sort of thing before. A few years ago, I was listening to the F1 whilst driving. They changed sport, and said the F1 moved to 5 Live Extra. I tuned to 5LE, which was playing another sport. After a few minutes, 5LE said the F1 was on the main 5 Live. I tuned back, only for another sport. Neither channel had the F1 on, and both were saying it was on the other channel...
(I heard a funny anecdote once about BBC swapping channels...)
Watch it on sky? Who wants to listen to F1 on the radio??
Some of us have lives.
And are too tight to pay for Sky.
I'm not too tight to pay for Sky. But I am too tight to pay for a TV license.
I know others differ, but I get a massive amount from my TV licence. Heck, I probably listen to three or four hours of BBC podcast content a week alone.
(Yes, I know I don't need a TV licence for that - but it's all paid for by it.)
In entertainment terms, it's blooming great value for me. Although, as I've said passim, the BBC's funding model is utterly borken in the long term.
And I get a massive amount from *your* TV licence too, because I don't watch telly but get my news and weather from bbc online plus hours a day of radio.
thanks!
Fair enough. Though thankfully a lot of people are willing to pay for quality content.
(Albeit not for the competence to actually play F1 on their F1 page...)
I've never seen DIe Hard, but shouldn't it be obvious whether or not it's a Christmas film from the presence or otherwise of things like Christmas trees and Santa Claus?
However it was released in July as a Summer Blockbuster.
The Christmas party is there to give the story plausibility...
Although it’s a massive stretch because the party is staged on … Christmas Eve. What company stages its works party on 24 December FFS? A massive plot hole in what is an otherwise superb (Christmas) film.
In America only Christmas Day is a holiday, so a party Christmas Eve plausible.
Not that plausibility is required in Christmas productions. Scrooge bought his turkey for the Cratchitts on Christmas Day itself
Good effort (hence the like) but I can assure you that even in America, companies very rarely (if ever) stage their parties on Christmas Eve!
Christmas shopping seems to reach fever pitch around 6pm. No time to party when things needs to be bought. Shops are even busier on Boxing Day with people returning stuff during their lunch break. Strange country.
I've never seen DIe Hard, but shouldn't it be obvious whether or not it's a Christmas film from the presence or otherwise of things like Christmas trees and Santa Claus?
However it was released in July as a Summer Blockbuster.
The Christmas party is there to give the story plausibility...
Although it’s a massive stretch because the party is staged on … Christmas Eve. What company stages its works party on 24 December FFS? A massive plot hole in what is an otherwise superb (Christmas) film.
In America only Christmas Day is a holiday, so a party Christmas Eve plausible.
Not that plausibility is required in Christmas productions. Scrooge bought his turkey for the Cratchitts on Christmas Day itself
Christmas Eve isn't a holiday here. In living memory, nor was Christmas day in Scotland
Correct. My father got a half-day on Christmas Day. New Year was the big celebration.
Mail: Boris Johnson is today facing more pressure to explain events at Downing Street Christmas parties last year after his deputy admitted any 'formal' events would have breached Covid laws.
Dominic Raab made the admission after Labour MPs demanded the Metropolitan Police probe two gatherings in November and December last year.
Both are said to have seen 40 or 50 people crammed 'cheek by jowl' in an inside room, and one is reported to have included a secret Santa and festive quiz.
Marr displayed the rule and it seems for it to be illegal it would have to be a party , not a few drinks at the end of the day in a work environment
I doubt we will ever know
I think we already know. There's a reason why every government spokesperson is parroting the same line and refusing to say any more.
As a matter of interest did you watch Marr and read the definition and understand just why this may well have been legal
Eating, drinking, and playing party games isn't ever going to come under the definition of a gathering that is primarily for business reasons, is it?
You spent an entire year telling us all what a charlatan Boris was. Don't start defending him now.
I am not part of a lynch mob and you have not answered the question
What proof do you have that this was illegal and if so provide it
Indeed neither Boris or Carrie were present
"Secret Santa", quiz, drinks and food and not working, indeed cramming into rooms to get pished, sounds awfully like a party. Like Dilyn sounds like a dog.
To claim it wasn't a party is about as honest as to claim Dilyn is a cat. Especially if everyone else has been forbidden to have parties.
@Big_G_NorthWales is defending the indefensible, and he knows it. He would be apoplectic if it was Drakefords office party...
I doing no such thing
If it was a party it was illegal, if it was a working environment at the end of the day it is not under the definition showed by Marr
It's one rule for them, another for us plebs. Time after time.
But you do not know the circumstances of this party and yet shout guilty
Innocent until proved guilty used to be the law in this land, seems some have reversed it
They had a party, at a time when No 10 - those people - had forbidden the world to have parties. Can you not see that pleading legal technicalities only makes it worse?
If you're blaming them for finding out the details of the rules and acting within them when you couldn't be bothered to find out the details of the rules, aren't you really just angry at yourself and you're projecting it onto them?
No, because the technicalities of the rules are in part irrelevant.
I've never seen DIe Hard, but shouldn't it be obvious whether or not it's a Christmas film from the presence or otherwise of things like Christmas trees and Santa Claus?
The key thing is first to define what is a Christmas movie. Without that, everything else is just opinion.
Absolutely, O Socrates. Would you say that the imperfect, ephemeral Christmas movies which we see with our corporeal eyes partake in the eternal and changeless Form of the Christmas Movie?
They've done this sort of thing before. A few years ago, I was listening to the F1 whilst driving. They changed sport, and said the F1 moved to 5 Live Extra. I tuned to 5LE, which was playing another sport. After a few minutes, 5LE said the F1 was on the main 5 Live. I tuned back, only for another sport. Neither channel had the F1 on, and both were saying it was on the other channel...
(I heard a funny anecdote once about BBC swapping channels...)
Watch it on sky? Who wants to listen to F1 on the radio??
Some of us have lives.
And are too tight to pay for Sky.
I never understand this argument. If you are a big F1 fan, it’s only about £30 a month to subscribe to Sky. That’s like five pints a month for all the sport. I’m not on commission but it seems to me to be a trifling sum so you can actually watch the races/matches.
It's more than £30, you also need Sky's base package so it ends up being £50+.
Bob Dole was a relic of an era when almost every presidential hopeful was a four-letter word. My favourite anecdote of the time was the lady who said "in my heart I want Bush, in my bush I want Hart."
Mail: Boris Johnson is today facing more pressure to explain events at Downing Street Christmas parties last year after his deputy admitted any 'formal' events would have breached Covid laws.
Dominic Raab made the admission after Labour MPs demanded the Metropolitan Police probe two gatherings in November and December last year.
Both are said to have seen 40 or 50 people crammed 'cheek by jowl' in an inside room, and one is reported to have included a secret Santa and festive quiz.
Marr displayed the rule and it seems for it to be illegal it would have to be a party , not a few drinks at the end of the day in a work environment
I doubt we will ever know
I think we already know. There's a reason why every government spokesperson is parroting the same line and refusing to say any more.
As a matter of interest did you watch Marr and read the definition and understand just why this may well have been legal
Eating, drinking, and playing party games isn't ever going to come under the definition of a gathering that is primarily for business reasons, is it?
You spent an entire year telling us all what a charlatan Boris was. Don't start defending him now.
I am not part of a lynch mob and you have not answered the question
What proof do you have that this was illegal and if so provide it
Indeed neither Boris or Carrie were present
"Secret Santa", quiz, drinks and food and not working, indeed cramming into rooms to get pished, sounds awfully like a party. Like Dilyn sounds like a dog.
To claim it wasn't a party is about as honest as to claim Dilyn is a cat. Especially if everyone else has been forbidden to have parties.
@Big_G_NorthWales is defending the indefensible, and he knows it. He would be apoplectic if it was Drakefords office party...
I doing no such thing
If it was a party it was illegal, if it was a working environment at the end of the day it is not under the definition showed by Marr
It's one rule for them, another for us plebs. Time after time.
Yup that’s about the size of it. At the time this lot were toasting the dodgy procurement contracts they’d arranged for their mates, some of us were in a very dark place indeed due to the enforced absence of human contact. Not to go all Keegan on you but I’d love it love it if some of them saw the inside of a cell.
For following the rules?
If they thought it within the rules to have an afterwork party with drinks, games, Secret Santa etc, don't you think it would have been polite to let the rest of us know? The fact that they kept it quiet suggests that they knew it was dodgy.
If a guest list comes out from the leaker and folk from outside attended...
Of course Max is allowed to drive other people off the track or take shortcuts. It’s all fine.
What will happen if they penalise Hamilton for being too slow on the parade lap and Verstappen for cutting that corner? Will both sets of fans explode?
I've never seen DIe Hard, but shouldn't it be obvious whether or not it's a Christmas film from the presence or otherwise of things like Christmas trees and Santa Claus?
The key thing is first to define what is a Christmas movie. Without that, everything else is just opinion.
Absolutely, O Socrates. Would you say that the imperfect, ephemeral Christmas movies which we see with our corporeal eyes partake in the eternal and changeless Form of the Christmas Movie?
Why do you have an obsession with abusing me? I don’t give a shit. I just imagine you have issues.
Mail: Boris Johnson is today facing more pressure to explain events at Downing Street Christmas parties last year after his deputy admitted any 'formal' events would have breached Covid laws.
Dominic Raab made the admission after Labour MPs demanded the Metropolitan Police probe two gatherings in November and December last year.
Both are said to have seen 40 or 50 people crammed 'cheek by jowl' in an inside room, and one is reported to have included a secret Santa and festive quiz.
Marr displayed the rule and it seems for it to be illegal it would have to be a party , not a few drinks at the end of the day in a work environment
I doubt we will ever know
I think we already know. There's a reason why every government spokesperson is parroting the same line and refusing to say any more.
As a matter of interest did you watch Marr and read the definition and understand just why this may well have been legal
Eating, drinking, and playing party games isn't ever going to come under the definition of a gathering that is primarily for business reasons, is it?
You spent an entire year telling us all what a charlatan Boris was. Don't start defending him now.
I am not part of a lynch mob and you have not answered the question
What proof do you have that this was illegal and if so provide it
Indeed neither Boris or Carrie were present
"Secret Santa", quiz, drinks and food and not working, indeed cramming into rooms to get pished, sounds awfully like a party. Like Dilyn sounds like a dog.
To claim it wasn't a party is about as honest as to claim Dilyn is a cat. Especially if everyone else has been forbidden to have parties.
@Big_G_NorthWales is defending the indefensible, and he knows it. He would be apoplectic if it was Drakefords office party...
I doing no such thing
If it was a party it was illegal, if it was a working environment at the end of the day it is not under the definition showed by Marr
It's one rule for them, another for us plebs. Time after time.
Yup that’s about the size of it. At the time this lot were toasting the dodgy procurement contracts they’d arranged for their mates, some of us were in a very dark place indeed due to the enforced absence of human contact. Not to go all Keegan on you but I’d love it love it if some of them saw the inside of a cell.
For following the rules?
If they thought it within the rules to have an afterwork party with drinks, games, Secret Santa etc, don't you think it would have been polite to let the rest of us know? The fact that they kept it quiet suggests that they knew it was dodgy.
If a guest list comes out from the leaker and folk from outside attended...
Everyone else was being told to work from home. For this lot it was apparently essential to work in person. Now we know why. So they could rodger their university crushes on the board room table, have boozy tax payer funded after work parties and goodness know what else that might not be in-tangentially related to other things we may have discussed on this thread.
I've never seen DIe Hard, but shouldn't it be obvious whether or not it's a Christmas film from the presence or otherwise of things like Christmas trees and Santa Claus?
The key thing is first to define what is a Christmas movie. Without that, everything else is just opinion.
Absolutely, O Socrates. Would you say that the imperfect, ephemeral Christmas movies which we see with our corporeal eyes partake in the eternal and changeless Form of the Christmas Movie?
Why do you have an obsession with abusing me? I don’t give a shit. I just imagine you have issues.
Is that abusive? I was sort of elliptically saying that your point was a good one.
Mail: Boris Johnson is today facing more pressure to explain events at Downing Street Christmas parties last year after his deputy admitted any 'formal' events would have breached Covid laws.
Dominic Raab made the admission after Labour MPs demanded the Metropolitan Police probe two gatherings in November and December last year.
Both are said to have seen 40 or 50 people crammed 'cheek by jowl' in an inside room, and one is reported to have included a secret Santa and festive quiz.
Marr displayed the rule and it seems for it to be illegal it would have to be a party , not a few drinks at the end of the day in a work environment
I doubt we will ever know
I think we already know. There's a reason why every government spokesperson is parroting the same line and refusing to say any more.
As a matter of interest did you watch Marr and read the definition and understand just why this may well have been legal
Eating, drinking, and playing party games isn't ever going to come under the definition of a gathering that is primarily for business reasons, is it?
You spent an entire year telling us all what a charlatan Boris was. Don't start defending him now.
I am not part of a lynch mob and you have not answered the question
What proof do you have that this was illegal and if so provide it
Indeed neither Boris or Carrie were present
"Secret Santa", quiz, drinks and food and not working, indeed cramming into rooms to get pished, sounds awfully like a party. Like Dilyn sounds like a dog.
To claim it wasn't a party is about as honest as to claim Dilyn is a cat. Especially if everyone else has been forbidden to have parties.
@Big_G_NorthWales is defending the indefensible, and he knows it. He would be apoplectic if it was Drakefords office party...
I doing no such thing
If it was a party it was illegal, if it was a working environment at the end of the day it is not under the definition showed by Marr
It's one rule for them, another for us plebs. Time after time.
But you do not know the circumstances of this party and yet shout guilty
Innocent until proved guilty used to be the law in this land, seems some have reversed it
They had a party, at a time when No 10 - those people - had forbidden the world to have parties. Can you not see that pleading legal technicalities only makes it worse?
If you're blaming them for finding out the details of the rules and acting within them when you couldn't be bothered to find out the details of the rules, aren't you really just angry at yourself and you're projecting it onto them?
No, because the technicalities of the rules are in part irrelevant.
It is remarkable how something as on-paper-exciting as F1 is so monumentally boring in practice. It's a combination of a really grudge-filled croquet game, and wondering, when the orange light comes on, whether to fill up at Texaco or try to hold out till next time you do a tesco shop.
They've done this sort of thing before. A few years ago, I was listening to the F1 whilst driving. They changed sport, and said the F1 moved to 5 Live Extra. I tuned to 5LE, which was playing another sport. After a few minutes, 5LE said the F1 was on the main 5 Live. I tuned back, only for another sport. Neither channel had the F1 on, and both were saying it was on the other channel...
(I heard a funny anecdote once about BBC swapping channels...)
Watch it on sky? Who wants to listen to F1 on the radio??
Some of us have lives.
And are too tight to pay for Sky.
I never understand this argument. If you are a big F1 fan, it’s only about £30 a month to subscribe to Sky. That’s like five pints a month for all the sport. I’m not on commission but it seems to me to be a trifling sum so you can actually watch the races/matches.
1) I'm tight. 2) It's £30 a month. 3) I'd rather have five pints. 4) I don't want to have to spend my Saturday and Sunday afternoons in front of the TV; and if I spent that much, I'd feel the need to get my moneysworth.
We're reasonably comfortably well off - enough for me not to have to work at the moment. One of the reasons for this is that, although we have a good income, we watch what we spend. We're not too tight - we buy lots of stuff - but we are careful. And before you know, it a subscription to Sky, Netflix, Disney etc gets into real money.
I've also sort-of grown out of love with F1. I've been watching it since it was first regularly shown on BBC 1 in the late 1970s when I was very young, and there are often better ways for me to spend Sunday afternoon. I used to organise my life so I'd be in on a Sunday afternoon; now I can listen to it if I'm out on a walk or run, or driving. And a Sky subs gets you quali and practice as well, and that's a long time. In addition, the little 'un isn't into it, and gets bored watching it (he's very enlightened).
When I was on my coastal walk, there was an F1 race when I was on the hillside to the south of Eileen Donan castle in Scotland. I couldn't get radio reception, but I could get mobile reception, so a mate would phone me up to let me know what was happening.
Why are Red Bull negotiating with the race stewards? How can a participant be involved in negotiations as to what the rules are?
Indeed, if left to the stewards that would have been a drive through penalty within 3 laps of restart, putting him to middle/back of the field, so what we just watched was another massive gift to RB from Masi.
Another day, another example of David Cameron’s Twitter maxim.
Why are political parties still not properly vetting their candidates’ social media histories, when they know that not-so-friendly opponents and newspapers definitely will be?
Helen Morgan, Lib Dem candidate in North Shropshire with today’s Godwin award, for writing, in the context of her son reading a book about the Holocaust:
“He commented that the Nazis were only able to do such terrible things because they didn’t think their victims were people. He’s 11. On Twitter this morning, there are people talking about cancelling their RNLI donations because they have picked up “illegals”. The language used every day in this country – by the Government, press and people with thousands of followers on social media – it’s nothing short of chilling.”
Then she liked a post from someone who replied:
‘Having visited Auschwitz concentration camp in the recent past. It really brings home man’s inhumanity to man. Now on a daily basis the language and actions of the Conservative Party make me more and more concerned about the direction they are taking the UK and its people.’
Her own post is totally on the money. The post she liked is perhaps a bit over the top. But I'm sure that plenty of people share the sentiment that the othering and scapegoating of refugees that's going on in this country right now is chilling, and, for anyone with a knowledge of European history, has some alarming historical resonances.
The suggestion that the Tories are similar to the Nazis in outlook and policies is absurd and, frankly, as good an example of "othering" as you will find. The SNP do very similar things demonising something like 25% of Scots who vote Tory and who, as a result, are apparently not real Scots. It also encourages the arrogance and moral superiority complex that so many liberals, in the broadest sense, are prone to and is one of the reasons that they fail at the ballot box.
There was a chap about 2000 years ago who had some interesting observations about motes and beams. She should reflect on it.
Thank goodness Tories and Unionists never indulge in that kind of behaviour (I couldn’t find the photoshop of Sturgeon in an SS uniform so beloved by your fruitier fellow travellers, I suspect twitter may have banned it). Motes and beams indeed.
That’s the one. Ironically what one might call the far right in Scotland tends to Unionism.
That’s a very seriously point actually as to why the SNP are wrong. Like Hitler they love the politics of nationalism. SNP won’t last much longer. People of Scotland will tire of the Nationalism spectacles, gravitate to another approach and Scot nationalism will go back to be a fringe thing.
I see you’re as insightful and original on this topic as on others.
😕
I’m genuine sorry if I touched a nerve on Scottish Separatism that matters to you. To be honest divvy I really would like to listen and learn here as I have never chatted with SNP before. can you answer a few straightforward questions about it?
1. Last time ref said it wanted to keep both the £ and the Monarchy? Will that be exactly the same in the next ref? 2. Really? Having both those things, is it proper independence from continued English and London influence? or a sort of half way house have your cake and eat it independence? 3. Surely the only True definition of independence is own currency and negotiate trade deal with what’s left of UK and everywhere else? Like Ireland? Because the place to avoid is the basket case facade democracy, Zimbabwe ending up in, you can have a parliament but not own the land, the resources, the ability to tax the necessary amount of wealth? 4. If Scotland has independence from England, does it have the economy and assets to maintain the current lifestyle, free higher education etc, enough wealth owned, invested and generated, to tax, to maintain standards of living it currently enjoys? What main industry will it have other than tourism? 5. Basically boils down to simple question, are the English currently takers from Scotland, Scotland takers from England, or current balance about right and fair? 6. If you want to keep the monarchy, then why not trust a Royal Commission how we can share these Isles, in a helping sharing UK commonwealth (which it should already have been the last few hundred years) where everyone’s regional and local identity feels in a happy place? But To create such a happy place cannot be achieved through ramping nationalism and localism, and holding separatist referendums, can it?
On the whole currency thing, I think it's widely acknowledged that the proposal to keep the pound was disingenuously sold and very poor politics. The factual point about it being viable in the short term was true, but it was an impossible message to sell to the public. I think the reality was that as soon as independence happened, or possibly even as part of the negotiations, the Scottish government would have pivoted away from that and launched their own currency / gone straight to the Euro if the EU accession fast-track would have been on. As a long term proposal, using the pound wouldn't have worked and I think the people saw through that particular ruse. Keeping the monarchy is a different matter. I'm certain the Scottish government wouldn't have moved at all on changing that. I can foresee a future, post-independence campaign for it, but I don't know whether it would really get the traction, and nobody on the mild-republican side of Scottish politics would want to risk their own position fighting a losing battle.
As for the comments comparing any mainstream UK party with the Nazis, you're clearly an idiot.
Thank you for what was almost a measured response. 🙂
Hitler was a Nazi - Not a nationalist? So I can’t make a comparison between SNP and all parties and all politicians who exploit nationalism? Who Wrap them themselves in flags? Wear nationalist glasses?
If I can’t, I do apologise.
Truth is Your response to my post goes to the heart of this. This whole separatist push has been founded on nationalists avoiding good scrutiny of their plan by, exploiting nationalism. Critiquing the deceit of Nationalists politicians without the knee jerk response like yours and Union divvies becomes impossible.
But this is too big to run away from scrutiny.
Firstly, is not Gordon Brown shoring up his position with British Jobs for British Workers not example of wearing the glasses of Nationalism in the same way as Nicola Sturgeon uses Nationilsm? But each time Nationalism specs are worn, they can be like a steroid to your popular rating, but should not be used to cover up deficiencies, wearing them comes with a cost of stoking division. It’s use is to hide things. Mislead people.
I think you are smart enough to understand politicians wrap themselves in flags, why and the costs of it. So is it me idiot, or you disingenuous?
But let’s keep it friendly and simple. I’m not hostile to Scottish independence with crazy thoughts of sending tanks in. Being a Scottish National is just as cool as being a Tyke like I am. And Ireland got freedom from London, and it’s working good for them.
Just trying to be clear what you are getting into. And if you are being taken into something honestly and know what you are getting. On YouTube is a programme with someone Carrington who set up Zimbabwe system, and he is saying sorry, no wonder it is a disaster we made mess of setting it up. Are we sure we are not seeing similar mistakes in the confusion over post independence wealth ownership?
This is why it needs these questions answered you are avoiding with the idiot insult - it need answers up front.
I’m not questioning the product and desire to have it, but sometimes it is the implementation that makes the following disaster.
Why are Red Bull negotiating with the race stewards? How can a participant be involved in negotiations as to what the rules are?
Indeed, if left to the stewards that would have been a drive through penalty within 3 laps of restart, putting him to middle/back of the field, so what we just watched was another massive gift to RB from Masi.
I can’t see why that wasn’t referred to the stewards immediately
Why are Red Bull negotiating with the race stewards? How can a participant be involved in negotiations as to what the rules are?
Indeed, if left to the stewards that would have been a drive through penalty within 3 laps of restart, putting him to middle/back of the field, so what we just watched was another massive gift to RB from Masi.
I can’t see why that wasn’t referred to the stewards immediately
It was but during a red flag the race director can make a decision.
I wouldn't use this track for go karting, bluntly. It isn't safe and while there is some entertainment in terms of these stupid restarts it's not what we're watching it for.
The House of Saud should refund every penny and do public penance.
Comments
Dole was a highly effective Congressman though and adept at getting legislation and deals through the Senate
Verstappen 1.66
Hamilton 2.42
(Yes, I know I don't need a TV licence for that - but it's all paid for by it.)
In entertainment terms, it's blooming great value for me. Although, as I've said passim, the BBC's funding model is utterly borken in the long term.
It seems they took a gamble and it backfired. Oops.
To be honest though the obvious play was to do the opposite of whatever the car in front did. You can see why Lewis pitted because previous crashes didn't result in barrier damage red flagging the race.
Frankly Lewis needs to be P1 or make sure they both crash on the first corner of restart, otherwise game over.
Even if the top layer is damaged, does that really matter that much?
*) Maintenance. This is the day-to-day maintenance work, the bread-and-butter work.
*) Renewals. This means renewing life-expired infrastructure.
*) Enhancements. This is work that adds new capabilities; e.g. a new signalling system, or a new line.
Maintenance and renewals can be planned and implemented fairly quickly. Enhancements are the things that can take significant time.
thanks!
(Albeit not for the competence to actually play F1 on their F1 page...)
Mr Blobby World is the one: if you haven’t been, you haven’t lived.
Now TV is cheaper but still not that cheap.
If a guest list comes out from the leaker and folk from outside attended...
Yet another subject on which TSE is completely wrong.
Dr. John Campbell"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Paq17X6ucQ
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2021/11/23/12/50864063-10232303-image-a-16_1637670380186.jpg
Both Hamilton & Verstappen ~evens
Not sure how many times Lewis has to win this race.
They’re making it up as they go along
Fingers crossed.....
Could someone enlighten me on how this effects Hamilton
Verstappen 4.3
Hamilton 1.5
So, the market thinks it’s good for hamilton
But I don't think this race will be going the distance, somehow...
Clueless wonder indeed.
Key data esp on vaccine efficacy vs ο still not available.
Story @theipaper: https://t.co/Qx6IR6KOrG
2) It's £30 a month.
3) I'd rather have five pints.
4) I don't want to have to spend my Saturday and Sunday afternoons in front of the TV; and if I spent that much, I'd feel the need to get my moneysworth.
We're reasonably comfortably well off - enough for me not to have to work at the moment. One of the reasons for this is that, although we have a good income, we watch what we spend. We're not too tight - we buy lots of stuff - but we are careful. And before you know, it a subscription to Sky, Netflix, Disney etc gets into real money.
I've also sort-of grown out of love with F1. I've been watching it since it was first regularly shown on BBC 1 in the late 1970s when I was very young, and there are often better ways for me to spend Sunday afternoon. I used to organise my life so I'd be in on a Sunday afternoon; now I can listen to it if I'm out on a walk or run, or driving. And a Sky subs gets you quali and practice as well, and that's a long time. In addition, the little 'un isn't into it, and gets bored watching it (he's very enlightened).
When I was on my coastal walk, there was an F1 race when I was on the hillside to the south of Eileen Donan castle in Scotland. I couldn't get radio reception, but I could get mobile reception, so a mate would phone me up to let me know what was happening.
Hitler was a Nazi - Not a nationalist? So I can’t make a comparison between SNP and all parties and all politicians who exploit nationalism? Who Wrap them themselves in flags? Wear nationalist glasses?
If I can’t, I do apologise.
Truth is Your response to my post goes to the heart of this. This whole separatist push has been founded on nationalists avoiding good scrutiny of their plan by, exploiting nationalism. Critiquing the deceit of Nationalists politicians without the knee jerk response like yours and Union divvies becomes impossible.
But this is too big to run away from scrutiny.
Firstly, is not Gordon Brown shoring up his position with British Jobs for British Workers not example of wearing the glasses of Nationalism in the same way as Nicola Sturgeon uses Nationilsm? But each time Nationalism specs are worn, they can be like a steroid to your popular rating, but should not be used to cover up deficiencies, wearing them comes with a cost of stoking division. It’s use is to hide things. Mislead people.
I think you are smart enough to understand politicians wrap themselves in flags, why and the costs of it. So is it me idiot, or you disingenuous?
But let’s keep it friendly and simple. I’m not hostile to Scottish independence with crazy thoughts of sending tanks in. Being a Scottish National is just as cool as being a Tyke like I am. And Ireland got freedom from London, and it’s working good for them.
Just trying to be clear what you are getting into. And if you are being taken into something honestly and know what you are getting. On YouTube is a programme with someone Carrington who set up Zimbabwe system, and he is saying sorry, no wonder it is a disaster we made mess of setting it up. Are we sure we are not seeing similar mistakes in the confusion over post independence wealth ownership?
This is why it needs these questions answered you are avoiding with the idiot insult - it need answers up front.
I’m not questioning the product and desire to have it, but sometimes it is the implementation that makes the following disaster.
Anyone would have thought you were bearing some kind of grudge….
The House of Saud should refund every penny and do public penance.