Listening to a bit of Jimmy Carr. He is undoubtedly funny (haven't got to "the" bit).
As he himself notes however it is slightly "interesting" to have some of the minority jokes come from a straight white man.
One of if not the unfunniest comedienne's I have ever heard, rahter have my doo daa's in a vice than listen to him.
Who's your favourite comedienne, then Malcetta?
Would have said Victoria Wood but she is no longer with us, not that many about just now. I do like Mickey Flanagan and Peter Kay who is not about much these days. If historic , then Chic Murray , Billy Connolly , Tommy Cooper.
Does anyone know what's happening with Peter Kay.
The brief public experiences he has made, he looks very ill. Apparently he has a home in rural Ireland and spends most of his time there.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
It's not even clever trolling. And of course its one of those where refuting the premise 'proves' it to the proposer.
The UK has made enough errors of it's own, it doesn't forever deserved criticism of others, anymore than they cannot criticise where we did cock up.
Howard (Lord) Flight: It looks as if Boris Johnson may “hang in there” for a while longer, although his days are surely numbered. He has lost the support of the coalition of parties which elected him. The longer he limps on the more damage he does to the Conservatives. A replacement Prime Minister will also need adequate time to settle into the job ahead of a General Election. Johnson will get some credit for his vaccination success, although this is already history. I do not see there being anything he can do to restore his reputation and popularity.
Do you want a head of government who did not go to Oxford University?
They should run that question past a thousand Scots.
Scots already have had a PM educated at Edinburgh University, Gordon Brown, more recently than there has been a PM educated at Cambridge
So we get one every hundred years. How fair.
Would you fancy being part of a political union where you never get to pick the government?
Given the average time in office for each UK PM is about 5 years and Scotland is less than 10% of the UK population, that is about right.
You also get your own Parliament now too where Sturgeon gets to be FM of Scotland
I am sure there are Scots that don't like to be reminded that Tony Blair was born in Scotland of a Scottish family, but I guess to the more prejudiced (meaning most Scottish Nationalists) he didn't sound Scottish enough or wear his tartan on his sleeve. Then there is also that very English sounding name Cameron who was PM fairly recently, plus the many many Scots who were leading members of the last Labour government. No doubt none of these people were "Scottish enough" and are probably all race traitors
Hat-tip please to John Smith, who was one of the best Labour Leaders ever, even if only briefly.
And as a point of order to the Scottish Nationalist fake news purveyors there have been 47 British PMs and 7 of them Scottish.
So 14%, when Scotland is only 7% of the UK population.
Essex has 1.4 million people and has not yet had a single PM born and raised in the county! Priti would be the first if she ever got there. Churchill was MP for Epping but was born at Blenheim Palace and raised in London
Priti was born and raised in Hertfordshire. AFAIK she didn't come to Essex until she did a post-grad at Essex Uni. Still doesn't live in the County.
So we are left with Andrew Rosindell then (if you still count Romford as Essex). Philip Hammond was raised in Essex but obviously has now missed his chance
Surely the only time the words "Andrew Rosindell" and "left" have been in the same sentence.
One of my more interesting experiences at University was that the students on our Russian course had a 16 week exchange with students from the USSR (this was mid-1980s).
They were saturated in English Georgian and Victorian Classics (create an easily managed stereotype of Western societal values), brought much of their food with them (eg tins of meat) to save up hard currency allowances for consumer durables, and were very carefully supervised inside a well controlled section of the hall of residence.
It caused a bit of havoc when one of them converted to Christianity. It was equally interesting house-sharing with one of the students who went to Leningrad on the Exchange, and understanding some of the restrictions placed on the life of Baptist churches in the USSR.
One set of nieces had (he's long gone) a grandfather who was born in Russia. One of the girls went on a Baltic Sea School Trip, bought by her other grandfather (born in Wales), which included a stop at Leningrad, and my 16 or so off niece was not allowed to land, and see the sights with her friends
That's a coincidence. I went on a similar trip when I was 16 [1964] and spent a day in Leningrad. Had a great time. No, we were not policed or followed (as far as I know). In fact we were treated royally, once it became clear that we were not Americans, who they didn't like at all.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
He is so bitter, as is common in nationalists, that any sense of objectivity is impossible for him to relate to in his pursuit of his divisive attitudes
It is a little sad that anyone can be so stupid to think a vaccine of all things should be a thing to become nationalistic about (and I include Tories in that), particularly as all pharma companies are about as international as you can get in terms of personnel. I imagine there were probably a fair few Scots in the AZ team, but they are probably not "true" Scots as they live in England and are therefore race traitors.
The biggest problem that this caused is that it was used by the Chinese in their campaign to promote their vaccines one of which actually turned out to be considerably less effective. In some countries, as a result, people are now on their 5th dose of vaccine.....
EDIT - and in others they are still stuck with the Chinese vaccine in question.
Listening to a bit of Jimmy Carr. He is undoubtedly funny (haven't got to "the" bit).
As he himself notes however it is slightly "interesting" to have some of the minority jokes come from a straight white man.
One of if not the unfunniest comedienne's I have ever heard, rahter have my doo daa's in a vice than listen to him.
Who's your favourite comedienne, then Malcetta?
Would have said Victoria Wood but she is no longer with us, not that many about just now. I do like Mickey Flanagan and Peter Kay who is not about much these days. If historic , then Chic Murray , Billy Connolly , Tommy Cooper.
Does anyone know what's happening with Peter Kay.
Word on the Bolton downlow grapevine is he's much better after cancer. He's always been a pretty private guy, mind, so that is just the rumour.
Good on him - I'm not surprised that the professional military wonder what on earth Putin thinks he's playing at in willy-waving with their forces. Apparently a sympathiser with the communists, he presumably harks back to the Brezhnev era when Russia politics were sclerotic but reasonably predictable. Populists are dangerous, in any country.
It's a really funny phenomenon the Jimmy Carr show. Making fun of everything, strokes, rapists, then the holocaust to come. He is careful around BLM that said.
I'm guessing it's a really right on (dare I say woke) audience, the sort who would apply for tickets to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue and think the R4 midweek 6.30 comedy shows are funny.
And they are applauding jokes about rapists, people with hypochondroplasia (! - not what he calls it) and eventually apparently the holocaust.
In the pub or a dinner party these people would be shocked at the content even if delivered as expertly as Carr delivers his material.
His audience is, rather unsurprisingly, likely to consist of people who find him funny.
Listening to a bit of Jimmy Carr. He is undoubtedly funny (haven't got to "the" bit).
As he himself notes however it is slightly "interesting" to have some of the minority jokes come from a straight white man.
One of if not the unfunniest comedienne's I have ever heard, rahter have my doo daa's in a vice than listen to him.
Who's your favourite comedienne, then Malcetta?
Would have said Victoria Wood but she is no longer with us, not that many about just now. I do like Mickey Flanagan and Peter Kay who is not about much these days. If historic , then Chic Murray , Billy Connolly , Tommy Cooper.
Not only was Billy Connolly a great comic he’s a cracking actor. He’s had a great career but his various plays set in Scotland are well worth catching. Chic Murray too was pretty decent as an actor. Was in a bizarre Play for Today called ‘curriculee curricula’.
It's a really funny phenomenon the Jimmy Carr show. Making fun of everything, strokes, rapists, then the holocaust to come. He is careful around BLM that said.
I'm guessing it's a really right on (dare I say woke) audience, the sort who would apply for tickets to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue and think the R4 midweek 6.30 comedy shows are funny.
And they are applauding jokes about rapists, people with hypochondroplasia (! - not what he calls it) and eventually apparently the holocaust.
In the pub or a dinner party these people would be shocked at the content even if delivered as expertly as Carr delivers his material.
His audience is, rather unsurprisingly, likely to consist of people who find him funny.
What is more surprising, the number of people who tune in who don't like him and then vent their anger at how offended they are having seen it :-) And all the way to the end just to make sure they didn't miss the most offensive stuff.
I heard a comedian talk about how a women wrote a letter to complaining about him, how she found him very offensive the first time she saw him in the summer and even more so the second time she came to see him at Christmas.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘a recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Who is going to grant this "referendum"?
Certainly not the Tories. Even if Boris goes, any Tory replacement will encounter the same logic. Why risk the Union, when there is a perfectly good argument ("once a generation") to say no to a vote?
Not gonna happen. That takes us to 2024. If the Tories win, then again they will say No for the same reason
So you need Starmer to win. If he gets a majority he will also say No, for the same reasons, with the ADDED incentive that one day the Labour Party needs to win again in Scotland, not secede it forever
So that leaves just one shot, Starmer as PM of a NOM Labour govt, dependant on the SNP for any votes. In that situation it is, I suppose, just about conceivable he might yield a vote, but I gravely doubt it as there is no way the Nats will vote him down and put Boris/Tories back in, so he is assured of their support if it comes to the crunch
AT SOME POINT if the Scots keep electing a Nat government which wants another indyref then yes, Westminster will reluctantly yield, but they won't do that until the "generation" argument is exhausted, and they are even less likely to do that any time the polls look good for the Nats
So you're a bit fucked. I reckon Sindyref2 will happen in the 2030s and this time London will be much harder in negotiating the timing, the question and the suffrage
I think you're right, in terms of what will happen, but the once in a generation argument is not a good one, nor is it sustainable for harmonious relationships between the constituent countries. It risks storing up a lot of resentments and greivances (what harm one more, I hear you say?) for the future and I think will make a future sindyRef both more likely to occur and harder to win.
The big problem, as I see it, is the constitution. Perniciously, it's not Scotland's place within it that is the problem but (essentially) England's. A new constitutional settlement between the Nations is required, one that allows a mechanism for the expression of English will outside of the national government but that will be inclusive to all the nations. Unfortunately, constitutional issues do not drive English politics and so it is difficult to see a democratic way through the impasse.
The only future for the United Kingdom is Federal. Without some major constitutional overhaul, all Westminster can do is refuse referenda and offer the devolved government more power by turn.
The latter being exactly what a future Starmer led government would likely do, with a Brown led commission for devomax
My hope is he would be a bit cannier than that. You can't out-SNP the SNP so offering more powers is just another short term strategy for storing up problems. There's not much to go on, admittedly, but I think he gets this. The Tories are Labour's enemy, but the SNP are their nemesis. I genuinely believe that an SLAB revival in Scotland is not only in Labour's interest, but is in the national interest.
What an odd choice of comparison - perhaps I'm wrong but id have assumed even in the pool of voters he was swimming in Boris would not be popular.
There is quite a sizeable chunk of patriotic/nationalist French opinion - 20-25% of the total? - which admires Brexit as an act of ultimate sovereignty and independence. You can easily find it on social media
Zemmour is presumably courting them, with his Boris comparison. Remember that Macron is seen by these people as a vile centrist/technocrat/europhile/traitor
If one rightwing candidate can sew up this eurosceptic vote, then they will be the final challenger against Macron. Le Pen has tilted "left" on Europe so she has allowed this flank to become exposed
I am sure pretty sure Macron will win, he has a very divided opposition
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘a recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Who is going to grant this "referendum"?
Certainly not the Tories. Even if Boris goes, any Tory replacement will encounter the same logic. Why risk the Union, when there is a perfectly good argument ("once a generation") to say no to a vote?
Not gonna happen. That takes us to 2024. If the Tories win, then again they will say No for the same reason
So you need Starmer to win. If he gets a majority he will also say No, for the same reasons, with the ADDED incentive that one day the Labour Party needs to win again in Scotland, not secede it forever
So that leaves just one shot, Starmer as PM of a NOM Labour govt, dependant on the SNP for any votes. In that situation it is, I suppose, just about conceivable he might yield a vote, but I gravely doubt it as there is no way the Nats will vote him down and put Boris/Tories back in, so he is assured of their support if it comes to the crunch
AT SOME POINT if the Scots keep electing a Nat government which wants another indyref then yes, Westminster will reluctantly yield, but they won't do that until the "generation" argument is exhausted, and they are even less likely to do that any time the polls look good for the Nats
So you're a bit fucked. I reckon Sindyref2 will happen in the 2030s and this time London will be much harder in negotiating the timing, the question and the suffrage
I think you're right, in terms of what will happen, but the once in a generation argument is not a good one, nor is it sustainable for harmonious relationships between the constituent countries. It risks storing up a lot of resentments and greivances (what harm one more, I hear you say?) for the future and I think will make a future sindyRef both more likely to occur and harder to win.
The big problem, as I see it, is the constitution. Perniciously, it's not Scotland's place within it that is the problem but (essentially) England's. A new constitutional settlement between the Nations is required, one that allows a mechanism for the expression of English will outside of the national government but that will be inclusive to all the nations. Unfortunately, constitutional issues do not drive English politics and so it is difficult to see a democratic way through the impasse.
The only future for the United Kingdom is Federal. Without some major constitutional overhaul, all Westminster can do is refuse referenda and offer the devolved government more power by turn.
Think that's all fair comment but nothing likely to happen very soon. No-one is going to be interested in a constitutional overhaul while we're facing a "cost of living crisis".
The big picture, however, is that Scots will never knowingly vote to make themselves poorer. Everything else is just so much wind and water. The ridiculous pensions rammy just shows what a dead duck Indy is becoming, as the economic case is unwinnable.
What an odd choice of comparison - perhaps I'm wrong but id have assumed even in the pool of voters he was swimming in Boris would not be popular.
Actually last year Boris had a higher rating in France than Macron, 51% to 33%.
60% of Le Pen voters and 59% of Les Republicains voters and even 55% of Melenchon voters had a favourable view of Boris.
Boris only had a negative rating with voters for Macron's En Marche and Socialist voters and in Paris, with 57% of Parisians having an unfavourable view of Johnson
Listening to a bit of Jimmy Carr. He is undoubtedly funny (haven't got to "the" bit).
As he himself notes however it is slightly "interesting" to have some of the minority jokes come from a straight white man.
One of if not the unfunniest comedienne's I have ever heard, rahter have my doo daa's in a vice than listen to him.
Who's your favourite comedienne, then Malcetta?
Would have said Victoria Wood but she is no longer with us, not that many about just now. I do like Mickey Flanagan and Peter Kay who is not about much these days. If historic , then Chic Murray , Billy Connolly , Tommy Cooper.
Not only was Billy Connolly a great comic he’s a cracking actor. He’s had a great career but his various plays set in Scotland are well worth catching. Chic Murray too was pretty decent as an actor. Was in a bizarre Play for Today called ‘curriculee curricula’.
Billy Connolly travel stuff is also very good. He was doing that before every pissing 2-bit celeb had to have a travel show.
Obviously Michel Palin was doing it before Connolly.
It's a really funny phenomenon the Jimmy Carr show. Making fun of everything, strokes, rapists, then the holocaust to come. He is careful around BLM that said.
I'm guessing it's a really right on (dare I say woke) audience, the sort who would apply for tickets to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue and think the R4 midweek 6.30 comedy shows are funny.
And they are applauding jokes about rapists, people with hypochondroplasia (! - not what he calls it) and eventually apparently the holocaust.
In the pub or a dinner party these people would be shocked at the content even if delivered as expertly as Carr delivers his material.
His audience is, rather unsurprisingly, likely to consist of people who find him funny.
It’s not as if it’s a radio show, or the local comedy club on a random night with no bill posted.
Everyone who was there paid for a ticket with “Jimmy Carr. His Darkest Material. Live Taping” printed on it. They can’t really argue they didn’t know what to expect!
Listening to a bit of Jimmy Carr. He is undoubtedly funny (haven't got to "the" bit).
As he himself notes however it is slightly "interesting" to have some of the minority jokes come from a straight white man.
One of if not the unfunniest comedienne's I have ever heard, rahter have my doo daa's in a vice than listen to him.
Who's your favourite comedienne, then Malcetta?
Would have said Victoria Wood but she is no longer with us, not that many about just now. I do like Mickey Flanagan and Peter Kay who is not about much these days. If historic , then Chic Murray , Billy Connolly , Tommy Cooper.
Not only was Billy Connolly a great comic he’s a cracking actor. He’s had a great career but his various plays set in Scotland are well worth catching. Chic Murray too was pretty decent as an actor. Was in a bizarre Play for Today called ‘curriculee curricula’.
Billy Connolly travel stuff is also very good. He was doing that before every pissing 2-bit celeb had to have a travel show.
Obviously Michel Palin was doing it before Connolly.
I remember fondly watching his World Tour of Australia a few months before going there myself in my early 20s. Funny, informative but with moments of poignancy.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘a recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Who is going to grant this "referendum"?
Certainly not the Tories. Even if Boris goes, any Tory replacement will encounter the same logic. Why risk the Union, when there is a perfectly good argument ("once a generation") to say no to a vote?
Not gonna happen. That takes us to 2024. If the Tories win, then again they will say No for the same reason
So you need Starmer to win. If he gets a majority he will also say No, for the same reasons, with the ADDED incentive that one day the Labour Party needs to win again in Scotland, not secede it forever
So that leaves just one shot, Starmer as PM of a NOM Labour govt, dependant on the SNP for any votes. In that situation it is, I suppose, just about conceivable he might yield a vote, but I gravely doubt it as there is no way the Nats will vote him down and put Boris/Tories back in, so he is assured of their support if it comes to the crunch
AT SOME POINT if the Scots keep electing a Nat government which wants another indyref then yes, Westminster will reluctantly yield, but they won't do that until the "generation" argument is exhausted, and they are even less likely to do that any time the polls look good for the Nats
So you're a bit fucked. I reckon Sindyref2 will happen in the 2030s and this time London will be much harder in negotiating the timing, the question and the suffrage
I think you're right, in terms of what will happen, but the once in a generation argument is not a good one, nor is it sustainable for harmonious relationships between the constituent countries. It risks storing up a lot of resentments and greivances (what harm one more, I hear you say?) for the future and I think will make a future sindyRef both more likely to occur and harder to win.
The big problem, as I see it, is the constitution. Perniciously, it's not Scotland's place within it that is the problem but (essentially) England's. A new constitutional settlement between the Nations is required, one that allows a mechanism for the expression of English will outside of the national government but that will be inclusive to all the nations. Unfortunately, constitutional issues do not drive English politics and so it is difficult to see a democratic way through the impasse.
The only future for the United Kingdom is Federal. Without some major constitutional overhaul, all Westminster can do is refuse referenda and offer the devolved government more power by turn.
Think that's all fair comment but nothing likely to happen very soon. No-one is going to be interested in a constitutional overhaul while we're facing a "cost of living crisis".
The big picture, however, is that Scots will never knowingly vote to make themselves poorer. Everything else is just so much wind and water. The ridiculous pensions rammy just shows what a dead duck Indy is becoming, as the economic case is unwinnable.
I have been confident all along that the union would win indyref2 and why I do not fear it
Furthermore, a scintilla of doubt in Scots minds about their pension will guarantee the union
What an odd choice of comparison - perhaps I'm wrong but id have assumed even in the pool of voters he was swimming in Boris would not be popular.
I think Zemmour is contrarianing himself out of contention.
He is though splitting the Le Pen vote, enabling Pecresse to come through the middle to reach the runoff with Macron. Pecresse could then beat Macron if most Zemmour and Le Pen voters back her in the runoff and Melenchon voters stay home rather than vote for the President
Listening to a bit of Jimmy Carr. He is undoubtedly funny (haven't got to "the" bit).
As he himself notes however it is slightly "interesting" to have some of the minority jokes come from a straight white man.
One of if not the unfunniest comedienne's I have ever heard, rahter have my doo daa's in a vice than listen to him.
Who's your favourite comedienne, then Malcetta?
Would have said Victoria Wood but she is no longer with us, not that many about just now. I do like Mickey Flanagan and Peter Kay who is not about much these days. If historic , then Chic Murray , Billy Connolly , Tommy Cooper.
Not only was Billy Connolly a great comic he’s a cracking actor. He’s had a great career but his various plays set in Scotland are well worth catching. Chic Murray too was pretty decent as an actor. Was in a bizarre Play for Today called ‘curriculee curricula’.
Billy Connolly travel stuff is also very good. He was doing that before every pissing 2-bit celeb had to have a travel show.
Obviously Michel Palin was doing it before Connolly.
I remember fondly watching his World Tour of Australia a few months before going there myself in my early 20s. Funny, informative but with moments of poignancy.
New Zealand one I really enjoyed as well....and I still haven't been, because of sodding COVID.
In a just world he bet on everything he said would happen and, having seen it happen, is living on a (Covid-free) island somewhere being fed grapes and pina coladas.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘a recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Who is going to grant this "referendum"?
Certainly not the Tories. Even if Boris goes, any Tory replacement will encounter the same logic. Why risk the Union, when there is a perfectly good argument ("once a generation") to say no to a vote?
Not gonna happen. That takes us to 2024. If the Tories win, then again they will say No for the same reason
So you need Starmer to win. If he gets a majority he will also say No, for the same reasons, with the ADDED incentive that one day the Labour Party needs to win again in Scotland, not secede it forever
So that leaves just one shot, Starmer as PM of a NOM Labour govt, dependant on the SNP for any votes. In that situation it is, I suppose, just about conceivable he might yield a vote, but I gravely doubt it as there is no way the Nats will vote him down and put Boris/Tories back in, so he is assured of their support if it comes to the crunch
AT SOME POINT if the Scots keep electing a Nat government which wants another indyref then yes, Westminster will reluctantly yield, but they won't do that until the "generation" argument is exhausted, and they are even less likely to do that any time the polls look good for the Nats
So you're a bit fucked. I reckon Sindyref2 will happen in the 2030s and this time London will be much harder in negotiating the timing, the question and the suffrage
I think you're right, in terms of what will happen, but the once in a generation argument is not a good one, nor is it sustainable for harmonious relationships between the constituent countries. It risks storing up a lot of resentments and greivances (what harm one more, I hear you say?) for the future and I think will make a future sindyRef both more likely to occur and harder to win.
The big problem, as I see it, is the constitution. Perniciously, it's not Scotland's place within it that is the problem but (essentially) England's. A new constitutional settlement between the Nations is required, one that allows a mechanism for the expression of English will outside of the national government but that will be inclusive to all the nations. Unfortunately, constitutional issues do not drive English politics and so it is difficult to see a democratic way through the impasse.
The only future for the United Kingdom is Federal. Without some major constitutional overhaul, all Westminster can do is refuse referenda and offer the devolved government more power by turn.
Think that's all fair comment but nothing likely to happen very soon. No-one is going to be interested in a constitutional overhaul while we're facing a "cost of living crisis".
The big picture, however, is that Scots will never knowingly vote to make themselves poorer. Everything else is just so much wind and water. The ridiculous pensions rammy just shows what a dead duck Indy is becoming, as the economic case is unwinnable.
I have been confident all along that the union would win indyref2 and why I do not fear it
Furthermore, a scintilla of doubt in Scots minds about their pension will guarantee the union
There was/is no credible economic case for Brexit, but 51% still voted for it. Personally I think there should be an Indy ref, but with a confirmatory referendum in place for the "deal" if they vote for it in the first instance. It'd be quite amusing for them to vote yes in the first and then decide no later.
I also think that as they seem to think they should have one every 8 to 10 years there should be an option for them to re-join in 8 to 10 years later provided rUK has a referendum to approve.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
Asked about the comments, Javid told Times Radio they were “horrid”. He added: “I think we all have a right to react to that. And one of the best ways anyone can react to that is show these platforms, what they think about Jimmy Carr by not watching or listening to him, and that will send him a very strong message.”
So that's two cabinet ministers criticising Jimmy Carr. If they said "personally, I don't find it very funny, but each to their own" then I could understand it. But it's disappointing to hear them saying how other people should behave towards Carr.
I am still intrigued why 6 weeks after it was releases this has only just become a thing. It was the most watched comedy special on Netflix in 2021, despite only coming out on the 26th Dec.
Millions watched it, the media will have as its part of their job and nobody commented. Then 6 weeks later it becomes an outrage.
Because the joke is now being repeated completely out of context. And it's only when out of context that the joke is utterly appalling.
Of course. Also, find it interesting that the sole focus of the outrage is on the gypsy element, not the Jehovah Witness had it coming part of the routine.
I once had some good fun - I got some people really rilled up against Seventh Day Adventists. Foaming at the mouth about their ghastly beliefs and practices. One person even suggest they should have children taken away from them....
Then I showed them a picture of me helping out at a community event that involved the local Seventh Day Adventist church. When they saw who made up the church, they got very, very upset. With me.....
As indeed they might - you and your little games.
Well, if you are going to express bigotry concerning religious minorities, don't be shocked if they turn out to be racial minorities as well.
Assuming that funky brands of Christianity are white-people-only or that there isn't a nasty history of oppression of such groups.......
That the reactionary wing of Christianity very much isn't whites only certainly isn't news to me.
Most religions are "reactionary" in the sense of the not being on the politically/socially progressive side.
If you are up for condemning religions based on them being reactionary, then you will have to be comfortable with saying that religion X, primarily practised by ethnic minority Y, is a crock of shit.
Personally, I find condemning other peoples religions somewhere between rude and a waste of time.....
I split Religion into 2 parts when I think about it or comment on it. The faith in a higher power and the belief system as it applies to life on earth. The faith bit I like. I don't have it but wish I did. I don't find it irrational or to be criticized or mocked in any way. The belief system is also fine by me so long as it's based on equality and tolerance and kindness. If it isn't - and sadly this is sometimes the case - that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so.
"I don't have it but wish I did" - interesting. An atheist who wishes he wasn't?
"that isn't fine and one shouldn't be shy to say so" - do you really criticise the major interpretation of all the Abrahamic religions (for example) ? Brave, if so.
No, I'm not an atheist. I'm a nothing. A big fat nothing. Yes, I'm ok with criticizing any beliefs propounded by any religion if they get up my nose. I don't think this is brave tbh - but I'll take that label if you insist.
It's perfectly acceptable to criticise a religion if you think it's wrong. But it's not the fact that that its belief system is not based on equality and tolerance that makes it wrong. The lack of equality and tolerance is because that's the way which those particular believers understand that their Gog wants them to behave. Faith isn't a little quirk of a fundamentally straightforward 20th century lifestyle. It is a fundamentally strange belief system - that there is an invisible higher power who requires certain things. Saying 'well that's ok as long as it doesn't fundamentally contradict 21st century western liberal views' rather misses the point.
There was a Marcus Brigstocke book about this. I got very angry with it. The sub-heading could have been 'ha, ha, look at these people, they don't even conform to 21st century liberal views, they can't possibly be right'. It was such a missed opportunity. If believers are wrong, they are wrong because of the fundamental aspect of their belief that rules of behaviour are handed down by a higher power - not because of the rather secondary consideration that they've misinterpreted those rules. If believers are right - well, who are we to know exactly how the higher power wants us to behave? From my point of view on the outside of religion, if there is a higher power, how am I to have any degree of certainty what the rules are? Maybe those of the 21st century Church of England. Maybe those of the taliban. Maybe those of the Orthodox Jews of North London, or the 16th century puritans, of the Catholic Church of the 9th century AD, or one of the tribal religions of South America.
We can't say 'it's ok to take your belief system from faith in a God, as long as that God agrees with 21st century western liberal norms, otherwise your God is wrong'. Does that not sound astonishingly arrogant - that we are the only people in history who might be right? Does it not seem vanishingly unlikely that we were interpreting God's requirements all wrong right up until the second half of the twentieth century, after which we started getting it right?
I should stress that I do believe in 21st century liberal norms. But I believe in them because they strike me as the best way for human society to arrange itself, not because I think a higher power has decreed them.
(And, in all probability, my belief in 21st century liberal norms is probably driven by the context in which I live my life rather than by dispassionate assessment. I'd like to think that I have independently arrived at the conclusion that 21st century societal norms are the correct ones. But transport most of us who believe in 21st century societal norms and have us grow up in ancient Sparta, and what would we believe? Most of us would believe in the norms of ancient Sparta. I'd like to think I'd be one of the few independent thinkers - but the chances of that are pretty slim.)
Yes, a kind of weightier version of Back To The Future where you are transported to the ancient world and try to talk them out of their primitive ways. You'd get nowhere and would soon adapt instead, be cheering with the rest of them as people were tossed to the lions.
But to be serious for a second, a 'belief in God' only makes sense to me - as a sentence, I mean, not the sentiment itself - if it means believing a human being is more than flesh & blood. We have a body or we *are* a body? Which is it? If the first, then the bit which isn't a body - some essential "I" - is in the spiritual world and it's then a short step from this to "God".
Me, I lack this belief in something (about us) other than our bodies. But if others have it, that's terrific and I would actually quite like to join them. It would, I think, make for a better life experience - and you'd never be disabused of it since when you die and it turns out you're wrong you won't know it and so will never find out you were wrong. This is why I think religious faith (in the way I'm defining it) is rational. Nevertheless I don't have any.
I distinguish between this and the rules dictated by religions for how life is lived. Where these are about clothes and food and buildings and methods of worship etc, that's an 'each to their own' affair, but it's a different matter where they effectively cast groups of people (eg women, homosexuals, non believers) as inferior beings. There's a lot of this about and I have no problem declaring it - with no caveats - to be wrong.
This is a good article - superficially about how Brexit voters defy easy characterisation but actually spending most of the article tootling around other subjects and how difficult it is to more from the general to the specific. Paywalled, but you can go in in incognito mode to read it. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-myth-of-the-typical-brexit-voter
I particularly liked this bit:
"People given to lazy stereotypes might be surprised that 32 per cent of people who voted Liberal Democrat in 2015 voted Leave in 2016. Indeed the only group you could safely stereotype were Guardian readers, 88 per cent of whom voted Remain."
Even to one who quite likes this theme, the finding that more than one in ten Guardian readers voted for Christmas seems slightly surprising.
I know everyone is a bit bored of 4pm Covid stats now. Clearly a sign of Covid being endemic! However, it looks like cases are about to start to plummet again. 92.3K -> 57.6K in a week.
Of course, all the other key metrics are heading in the right direction.
What an odd choice of comparison - perhaps I'm wrong but id have assumed even in the pool of voters he was swimming in Boris would not be popular.
I think Zemmour is contrarianing himself out of contention.
He is though splitting the Le Pen vote, enabling Pecresse to come through the middle to reach the runoff with Macron. Pecresse could then beat Macron if most Zemmour and Le Pen voters back her in the runoff and Melenchon voters stay home rather than vote for the President
Yep, looks that way. Wish I'd laid Zemmour rather than backing Le Pen (the latter was always with a view to trading, backed when Zemmour was shorter - expected him to fade and Le Pen to come in). I didn't take the risk of another serious(ish) contender sufficiently seriously.
Luckily, I got on Pecresse just before she shortened and laid back near the peak, so I'm (barely) green on French election. Would be nice if Pecresse would now implode and let me make some money on Le Pen as well though! Why can't she say she's like Johnson?
I know everyone is a bit bored of 4pm Covid stats now. Clearly a sign of Covid being endemic! However, it looks like cases are about to start to plummet again. 92.3K -> 57.6K in a week.
Of course, all the other key metrics are heading in the right direction.
Thats because no-one is testing any more, 'innocent face'...
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
He is so bitter, as is common in nationalists, that any sense of objectivity is impossible for him to relate to in his pursuit of his divisive attitudes
It is a little sad that anyone can be so stupid to think a vaccine of all things should be a thing to become nationalistic about (and I include Tories in that), particularly as all pharma companies are about as international as you can get in terms of personnel. I imagine there were probably a fair few Scots in the AZ team, but they are probably not "true" Scots as they live in England and are therefore race traitors.
One of the funniest elements in the saga was the EU suing the “British” Astra Zeneca Plc when it turned out they actually had to sue the Swedish Astra Zeneca AB as that was who their contract was with….
This is a good article - superficially about how Brexit voters defy easy characterisation but actually spending most of the article tootling around other subjects and how difficult it is to more from the general to the specific. Paywalled, but you can go in in incognito mode to read it. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-myth-of-the-typical-brexit-voter
I particularly liked this bit:
"People given to lazy stereotypes might be surprised that 32 per cent of people who voted Liberal Democrat in 2015 voted Leave in 2016. Indeed the only group you could safely stereotype were Guardian readers, 88 per cent of whom voted Remain."
Even to one who quite likes this theme, the finding that more than one in ten Guardian readers voted for Christmas seems slightly surprising.
Lexiteers, I'd guess. Highly suspicious of the single market etc due to 'Thatcha' ('Fatcha'?)
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
WASPI women ?
I assume they've finally lost, or are they still fighting for their massive bung?
Still battling on last I heard.
The government may be desperate enough to get a quick 'win' that they give in.
They have not, will not and have no reason to. While the changes weren’t trailed “perfectly” enough women took action to lay the lie that this was somehow done “in secret”.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘a recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Who is going to grant this "referendum"?
Certainly not the Tories. Even if Boris goes, any Tory replacement will encounter the same logic. Why risk the Union, when there is a perfectly good argument ("once a generation") to say no to a vote?
Not gonna happen. That takes us to 2024. If the Tories win, then again they will say No for the same reason
So you need Starmer to win. If he gets a majority he will also say No, for the same reasons, with the ADDED incentive that one day the Labour Party needs to win again in Scotland, not secede it forever
So that leaves just one shot, Starmer as PM of a NOM Labour govt, dependant on the SNP for any votes. In that situation it is, I suppose, just about conceivable he might yield a vote, but I gravely doubt it as there is no way the Nats will vote him down and put Boris/Tories back in, so he is assured of their support if it comes to the crunch
AT SOME POINT if the Scots keep electing a Nat government which wants another indyref then yes, Westminster will reluctantly yield, but they won't do that until the "generation" argument is exhausted, and they are even less likely to do that any time the polls look good for the Nats
So you're a bit fucked. I reckon Sindyref2 will happen in the 2030s and this time London will be much harder in negotiating the timing, the question and the suffrage
I think you're right, in terms of what will happen, but the once in a generation argument is not a good one, nor is it sustainable for harmonious relationships between the constituent countries. It risks storing up a lot of resentments and greivances (what harm one more, I hear you say?) for the future and I think will make a future sindyRef both more likely to occur and harder to win.
The big problem, as I see it, is the constitution. Perniciously, it's not Scotland's place within it that is the problem but (essentially) England's. A new constitutional settlement between the Nations is required, one that allows a mechanism for the expression of English will outside of the national government but that will be inclusive to all the nations. Unfortunately, constitutional issues do not drive English politics and so it is difficult to see a democratic way through the impasse.
The only future for the United Kingdom is Federal. Without some major constitutional overhaul, all Westminster can do is refuse referenda and offer the devolved government more power by turn.
Think that's all fair comment but nothing likely to happen very soon. No-one is going to be interested in a constitutional overhaul while we're facing a "cost of living crisis".
The big picture, however, is that Scots will never knowingly vote to make themselves poorer. Everything else is just so much wind and water. The ridiculous pensions rammy just shows what a dead duck Indy is becoming, as the economic case is unwinnable.
If were Labour I'd be exploiting the SNP's pensions claim. If the SNP really believe an independent Scotland would be more prosperous than being in the UK, why does a crucial part of that case rest on people rUK paying for Scottish pensions post-indy? Labour should say that it shows the SNP has no confidence in its own case for independence and that they think their voters are idiots.
I think Macron's going to want a big table of his own.
WTF? What was going through the mind of the publicity people? Trying to suggest they can't stand each other? That they are about to get divorced (Citizen Kane etc)?
A 40% WoW fall in cases by date reported, with the (more reliable but time lagged) fall in cases by date of test also gathering pace. No obvious data issues to drive it - though as always caution should be exercised with these figures.
Interestingly and not unrelatedly, the fall in testing also seems to be being maintained - almost below 1m tests per day now. Which is still far too many for my preferences, but perhaps indicates the public's increasing indifference to covid.
Training plumbers for the hydrogen addition to the natural gas supply is also a big one.
The last time we had the boiler inspected, the plumber told me about going on his hydrogen certification course. Where they couldn't use actual hydrogen. Because they would need to rebuild the training centre to handle it safely.
I have read that, counter-intuitively, hydrogen is safer than natural gas. The reason for this is that it is so light that, if it leaks, it dissipates from a building very rapidly, rather than remaining trapped inside and building up a dangerous concentration as natural gas does.
If a fraction of hydrogen is introduced, I'd say that there will have to be an imposition first of all boilers - ie every house - to receive it will have to have upgraded boilers before it can happen.
That sounds like a biggish project, especially as not all boilers are currently required to have annual inspections afaik. I don't think that regulation applies to owner occupied dwellings.
And I wonder about illegal, or "for cash" unregistered installations.
It's something that has to be completely right, or there could be a risk of multiples gas explosions.
Hydrogen blend compatible boilers are being sold now. The ones that are capable of running on 100% hydrogen are out next year, I believe.
The idea is it will be a mater of converting to the blend, area by area.
EDIT: Hydrogen has some interesting safety issues. One is that it is a very small molecule, so it can leak through apparently solid materials. In addition, adding a smell agent (as with Natural gas) doesn't necessarily work, because a leak can be small enough to leak hydrogen, but not the molecules of the smell agent......
Agreed.
However there are plenty of boilers still in place that are 1980s if not 1970s vintage.
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
He is so bitter, as is common in nationalists, that any sense of objectivity is impossible for him to relate to in his pursuit of his divisive attitudes
It is a little sad that anyone can be so stupid to think a vaccine of all things should be a thing to become nationalistic about (and I include Tories in that), particularly as all pharma companies are about as international as you can get in terms of personnel. I imagine there were probably a fair few Scots in the AZ team, but they are probably not "true" Scots as they live in England and are therefore race traitors.
One of the funniest elements in the saga was the EU suing the “British” Astra Zeneca Plc when it turned out they actually had to sue the Swedish Astra Zeneca AB as that was who their contract was with….
That is assuming "they" thought it was "British". Maybe Macron did, or at least thought enough French voters did, so that it was a nice bit of populism to have a pop at what was thought to be a Rosbif company. I am not convinced it was necessarily anti-British by the EU, more of an attempt to cover up red faces in the Commission at their ineptitude in vaccine procurement.
Listening to a bit of Jimmy Carr. He is undoubtedly funny (haven't got to "the" bit).
As he himself notes however it is slightly "interesting" to have some of the minority jokes come from a straight white man.
One of if not the unfunniest comedienne's I have ever heard, rahter have my doo daa's in a vice than listen to him.
Who's your favourite comedienne, then Malcetta?
Would have said Victoria Wood but she is no longer with us, not that many about just now. I do like Mickey Flanagan and Peter Kay who is not about much these days. If historic , then Chic Murray , Billy Connolly , Tommy Cooper.
Not only was Billy Connolly a great comic he’s a cracking actor. He’s had a great career but his various plays set in Scotland are well worth catching. Chic Murray too was pretty decent as an actor. Was in a bizarre Play for Today called ‘curriculee curricula’.
Billy Connolly travel stuff is also very good. He was doing that before every pissing 2-bit celeb had to have a travel show.
Obviously Michel Palin was doing it before Connolly.
Ooh, I’d forgotten that and you are quite right. His Route 66 one was excellent
It's a really funny phenomenon the Jimmy Carr show. Making fun of everything, strokes, rapists, then the holocaust to come. He is careful around BLM that said.
I'm guessing it's a really right on (dare I say woke) audience, the sort who would apply for tickets to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue and think the R4 midweek 6.30 comedy shows are funny.
And they are applauding jokes about rapists, people with hypochondroplasia (! - not what he calls it) and eventually apparently the holocaust.
In the pub or a dinner party these people would be shocked at the content even if delivered as expertly as Carr delivers his material.
His audience is, rather unsurprisingly, likely to consist of people who find him funny.
What is more surprising, the number of people who tune in who don't like him and then vent their anger at how offended they are having seen it :-) And all the way to the end just to make sure they didn't miss the most offensive stuff.
I heard a comedian talk about how a women wrote a letter to complaining about him, how she found him very offensive the first time she saw him in the summer and even more so the second time she came to see him at Christmas.
Open minded individual giving him a second chance. Sensible.
Perhaps he could have been drunk the first time, or had an argument with his pussycat.
Training plumbers for the hydrogen addition to the natural gas supply is also a big one.
The last time we had the boiler inspected, the plumber told me about going on his hydrogen certification course. Where they couldn't use actual hydrogen. Because they would need to rebuild the training centre to handle it safely.
I have read that, counter-intuitively, hydrogen is safer than natural gas. The reason for this is that it is so light that, if it leaks, it dissipates from a building very rapidly, rather than remaining trapped inside and building up a dangerous concentration as natural gas does.
If a fraction of hydrogen is introduced, I'd say that there will have to be an imposition first of all boilers - ie every house - to receive it will have to have upgraded boilers before it can happen.
That sounds like a biggish project, especially as not all boilers are currently required to have annual inspections afaik. I don't think that regulation applies to owner occupied dwellings.
And I wonder about illegal, or "for cash" unregistered installations.
It's something that has to be completely right, or there could be a risk of multiples gas explosions.
Hydrogen blend compatible boilers are being sold now. The ones that are capable of running on 100% hydrogen are out next year, I believe.
The idea is it will be a mater of converting to the blend, area by area.
EDIT: Hydrogen has some interesting safety issues. One is that it is a very small molecule, so it can leak through apparently solid materials. In addition, adding a smell agent (as with Natural gas) doesn't necessarily work, because a leak can be small enough to leak hydrogen, but not the molecules of the smell agent......
Agreed.
However there are plenty of boilers still in place that are 1980s if not 1970s vintage.
These need to be dealt with, or considered.
The idea, I am told is that when the number of boilers in an area reaches a critical number, then the last few can be mopped up by mandatory regulation. Followed by switch over to blended.
Similar to the coal gas to natural gas thing, back in the day....
What an odd choice of comparison - perhaps I'm wrong but id have assumed even in the pool of voters he was swimming in Boris would not be popular.
I think Zemmour is contrarianing himself out of contention.
He is though splitting the Le Pen vote, enabling Pecresse to come through the middle to reach the runoff with Macron. Pecresse could then beat Macron if most Zemmour and Le Pen voters back her in the runoff and Melenchon voters stay home rather than vote for the President
Yep, looks that way. Wish I'd laid Zemmour rather than backing Le Pen (the latter was always with a view to trading, backed when Zemmour was shorter - expected him to fade and Le Pen to come in). I didn't take the risk of another serious(ish) contender sufficiently seriously.
Luckily, I got on Pecresse just before she shortened and laid back near the peak, so I'm (barely) green on French election. Would be nice if Pecresse would now implode and let me make some money on Le Pen as well though! Why can't she say she's like Johnson?
That might actually help her in the runoff win over Zemmour voters and Le Pen voters.
Pecresse won't though but she will harden her line on immigration and security in the runoff. She is playing a clever game, stay largely centrist in the first round to tie up her core Les Republicains vote while Zemmour splits the Le Pen vote.
Then once Zemmour and Le Pen have knocked each other out she will swing to the populist right to pick up their voters as her best chance of beating Macron. Les Republicains + Zemmour + Le Pen + Dupont Aignan voters combined gets her to 50%. If Macron does not similarly get Melenchon voters behind him then he loses, as En Marche + Socialist + Green voters are less than 50%
I think Macron's going to want a big table of his own.
WTF? What was going through the mind of the publicity people? Trying to suggest they can't stand each other? That they are about to get divorced (Citizen Kane etc)?
Apparently Putin is obsessed with not getting Covid. Maybe it is socialist distancing?
A 40% WoW fall in cases by date reported, with the (more reliable but time lagged) fall in cases by date of test also gathering pace. No obvious data issues to drive it - though as always caution should be exercised with these figures.
Interestingly and not unrelatedly, the fall in testing also seems to be being maintained - almost below 1m tests per day now. Which is still far too many for my preferences, but perhaps indicates the public's increasing indifference to covid.
I think the indifference to Covid is quite widespread now. There are still a few iSage-type zealots out there. One of my wife's friends basically locked her 12yo son in his room for a week when he had Covid. They and some others went out last week for a meal and one suggested that she was like a prison jailer.
Unless some new much more deadly and transmissible variant suddenly crops up then Covid in the UK will be out of the pandemic and into an endemic state.
I was told this one by the Chief Rabbi of Northern Ireland.
Bloke comes in to work all sad
Bloke: I just found out that my grandfather died in the holocaust. Everyone: Oh, thats terrible. {sometime later, after many commiserations} Bloke: Yes, he fell out of a guard tower.
Listening to a bit of Jimmy Carr. He is undoubtedly funny (haven't got to "the" bit).
As he himself notes however it is slightly "interesting" to have some of the minority jokes come from a straight white man.
One of if not the unfunniest comedienne's I have ever heard, rahter have my doo daa's in a vice than listen to him.
Who's your favourite comedienne, then Malcetta?
Would have said Victoria Wood but she is no longer with us, not that many about just now. I do like Mickey Flanagan and Peter Kay who is not about much these days. If historic , then Chic Murray , Billy Connolly , Tommy Cooper.
Not only was Billy Connolly a great comic he’s a cracking actor. He’s had a great career but his various plays set in Scotland are well worth catching. Chic Murray too was pretty decent as an actor. Was in a bizarre Play for Today called ‘curriculee curricula’.
If you have any doubts about Connolly's acting abilities watch his performance in Just Another Saturday.
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
Tangential - I've always loved the scene in Local Hero where the guy who owns the beach offers to sell if for a price set by the number of grains of sand in his hand, $1 per grain and the buyer refuses. Humans aren't good at big (and not so big) numbers. Edit £1/grain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSMOQKNXbV8
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
He is so bitter, as is common in nationalists, that any sense of objectivity is impossible for him to relate to in his pursuit of his divisive attitudes
It is a little sad that anyone can be so stupid to think a vaccine of all things should be a thing to become nationalistic about (and I include Tories in that), particularly as all pharma companies are about as international as you can get in terms of personnel. I imagine there were probably a fair few Scots in the AZ team, but they are probably not "true" Scots as they live in England and are therefore race traitors.
One of the funniest elements in the saga was the EU suing the “British” Astra Zeneca Plc when it turned out they actually had to sue the Swedish Astra Zeneca AB as that was who their contract was with….
Who was the defendant? I don't think I have the contract still to hand.
I followed the European Commissioners lying their heads off rather more closely.
And the partly fictional accounts that have been attempted to be established as the narrative.
I still have to see an enquiry as to how many EU citizens have been unnecessarily killed by the initial mess up of the procurement, and the delays unnecessarily caused.
The very fact the Nats think you could fight a referendum on the basis of some sort of court action against a foreign country to (hopefully) secure a state pension if there was a yes vote is only proof there patently isn’t going to be a referendum
Let's not go there again - can we just agree to disagree with those who believe in magic state pension money trees.
So, hang on, in the absence of indy, the UK is going to find itself unable to continue to pay pensions to UK pensioners, is it?
The tree is analogous to the pot. Something that can immediately be exploited for money. There is no tree, there is no pot. It's all out of current revenue.
Oh my god
If I want to establish a fund to meet a known future liability, I tend to buy gilts from the government. That is, promises from the government to make regular payments to me in the future. This is usually regarded as the safest possible way of investing. So how actually would the government establish a fund? What is more secure than a promise by the government to pay? What makes you think that an institution which turns over 1.1tn a year and is incapable of going bankrupt is not something that can be immediately exploited for money?
How many rUK voters are going to willing pay the State pension of pensioners in an Independent Scotland after what would be a bitterly fought independence referendum.
What would the consequences be for any rUK Government that agreed to do so come the next (and subsequent) elections?
That's why it doesn't work...
How is the construction of the concrete bunkers for the storage of 200+ nuclear warheads near Falmouth going? Oh! You haven’t started yet?! Dearie dearie me.
That's not an issue until Scotland gets a referendum. My point is that what Scotland wants is politic suicide where any rUK government to even vaguely suggest it.
And the standard attack on the forthcoming NI changes is where did that £350m a week go to?
Page one of chapter one of Negotiation for Dummies. BritNats ought to buy copies.
The most fascinating aspect of Blair McDougall‘a recent activity is that BetterTogether2 is clearly well under way. The forces of evil are gathering. Will the good guys win the day this time? Exciting, n’est-ce pas?
Who is going to grant this "referendum"?
Certainly not the Tories. Even if Boris goes, any Tory replacement will encounter the same logic. Why risk the Union, when there is a perfectly good argument ("once a generation") to say no to a vote?
Not gonna happen. That takes us to 2024. If the Tories win, then again they will say No for the same reason
So you need Starmer to win. If he gets a majority he will also say No, for the same reasons, with the ADDED incentive that one day the Labour Party needs to win again in Scotland, not secede it forever
So that leaves just one shot, Starmer as PM of a NOM Labour govt, dependant on the SNP for any votes. In that situation it is, I suppose, just about conceivable he might yield a vote, but I gravely doubt it as there is no way the Nats will vote him down and put Boris/Tories back in, so he is assured of their support if it comes to the crunch
AT SOME POINT if the Scots keep electing a Nat government which wants another indyref then yes, Westminster will reluctantly yield, but they won't do that until the "generation" argument is exhausted, and they are even less likely to do that any time the polls look good for the Nats
So you're a bit fucked. I reckon Sindyref2 will happen in the 2030s and this time London will be much harder in negotiating the timing, the question and the suffrage
I think you're right, in terms of what will happen, but the once in a generation argument is not a good one, nor is it sustainable for harmonious relationships between the constituent countries. It risks storing up a lot of resentments and greivances (what harm one more, I hear you say?) for the future and I think will make a future sindyRef both more likely to occur and harder to win.
The big problem, as I see it, is the constitution. Perniciously, it's not Scotland's place within it that is the problem but (essentially) England's. A new constitutional settlement between the Nations is required, one that allows a mechanism for the expression of English will outside of the national government but that will be inclusive to all the nations. Unfortunately, constitutional issues do not drive English politics and so it is difficult to see a democratic way through the impasse.
The only future for the United Kingdom is Federal. Without some major constitutional overhaul, all Westminster can do is refuse referenda and offer the devolved government more power by turn.
Think that's all fair comment but nothing likely to happen very soon. No-one is going to be interested in a constitutional overhaul while we're facing a "cost of living crisis".
The big picture, however, is that Scots will never knowingly vote to make themselves poorer. Everything else is just so much wind and water. The ridiculous pensions rammy just shows what a dead duck Indy is becoming, as the economic case is unwinnable.
If were Labour I'd be exploiting the SNP's pensions claim. If the SNP really believe an independent Scotland would be more prosperous than being in the UK, why does a crucial part of that case rest on people rUK paying for Scottish pensions post-indy? Labour should say that it shows the SNP has no confidence in its own case for independence and that they think their voters are idiots.
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
Being teetotal is one thing, but cranking up the price for everyone else suggests a failure to learn one of the lessons of partygate. Which admittedly wasn't much of a thing when he did the cranking. This has to change if Sunak wants the gig.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
He is so bitter, as is common in nationalists, that any sense of objectivity is impossible for him to relate to in his pursuit of his divisive attitudes
It is a little sad that anyone can be so stupid to think a vaccine of all things should be a thing to become nationalistic about (and I include Tories in that), particularly as all pharma companies are about as international as you can get in terms of personnel. I imagine there were probably a fair few Scots in the AZ team, but they are probably not "true" Scots as they live in England and are therefore race traitors.
One of the funniest elements in the saga was the EU suing the “British” Astra Zeneca Plc when it turned out they actually had to sue the Swedish Astra Zeneca AB as that was who their contract was with….
That is assuming "they" thought it was "British". Maybe Macron did, or at least thought enough French voters did, so that it was a nice bit of populism to have a pop at what was thought to be a Rosbif company. I am not convinced it was necessarily anti-British by the EU, more of an attempt to cover up red faces in the Commission at their ineptitude in vaccine procurement.
Since they were bitterly complaining about the British vaccine roll out and not the Swedish one and threatening to block supplies to Britain, not Sweden it’s not a great stretch to conclude it was the British they sought to punish. And couldn’t.
I was told this one by the Chief Rabbi of Northern Ireland.
Bloke comes in to work all sad
Bloke: I just found out that my grandfather died in the holocaust. Everyone: Oh, thats terrible. {sometime later, after many commiserations} Bloke: Yes, he fell out of a guard tower.
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
Someone has comprehended the vastness, otherwise it wouldn't have been in that Forbes article. That is some very clever vertical monkey (ape actually to be a pedant vertical ape)> That said, I tend to agree that a a failure to understand the likeliness of a superior intelligence to Humankind is a failure of imagination.
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
Being teetotal is one thing, but cranking up the price for everyone else suggests a failure to learn one of the lessons of partygate. Which admittedly wasn't much of a thing when he did the cranking. This has to change if Sunak wants the gig.
It's the Ken Livingstone don't drive hit drivers hard school of policy.
- Cases down. Yes, it is Monday. But R has been solidly below 1 across all regions for a bit now. - Admissions down. R solid below 1 - MV beds down - In hospital down - Deaths down
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
He is so bitter, as is common in nationalists, that any sense of objectivity is impossible for him to relate to in his pursuit of his divisive attitudes
It is a little sad that anyone can be so stupid to think a vaccine of all things should be a thing to become nationalistic about (and I include Tories in that), particularly as all pharma companies are about as international as you can get in terms of personnel. I imagine there were probably a fair few Scots in the AZ team, but they are probably not "true" Scots as they live in England and are therefore race traitors.
One of the funniest elements in the saga was the EU suing the “British” Astra Zeneca Plc when it turned out they actually had to sue the Swedish Astra Zeneca AB as that was who their contract was with….
That is assuming "they" thought it was "British". Maybe Macron did, or at least thought enough French voters did, so that it was a nice bit of populism to have a pop at what was thought to be a Rosbif company. I am not convinced it was necessarily anti-British by the EU, more of an attempt to cover up red faces in the Commission at their ineptitude in vaccine procurement.
Since they were bitterly complaining about the British vaccine roll out and not the Swedish one and threatening to block supplies to Britain, not Sweden it’s not a great stretch to conclude it was the British they sought to punish. And couldn’t.
It is possible, particularly if you wish to view it from a nationalistic perspective, and perhaps there were people in the EU countries in addition to M. Macron who viewed it that way. I think there is significant evidence IIRC that there were also a lot that did not.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
He is so bitter, as is common in nationalists, that any sense of objectivity is impossible for him to relate to in his pursuit of his divisive attitudes
It is a little sad that anyone can be so stupid to think a vaccine of all things should be a thing to become nationalistic about (and I include Tories in that), particularly as all pharma companies are about as international as you can get in terms of personnel. I imagine there were probably a fair few Scots in the AZ team, but they are probably not "true" Scots as they live in England and are therefore race traitors.
One of the funniest elements in the saga was the EU suing the “British” Astra Zeneca Plc when it turned out they actually had to sue the Swedish Astra Zeneca AB as that was who their contract was with….
Who was the defendant? I don't think I have the contract still to hand.
I followed the European Commissioners lying their heads off rather more closely.
And the partly fictional accounts that have been attempted to be established as the narrative.
I still have to see an enquiry as to how many EU citizens have been unnecessarily killed by the initial mess up of the procurement, and the delays unnecessarily caused.
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
He is so bitter, as is common in nationalists, that any sense of objectivity is impossible for him to relate to in his pursuit of his divisive attitudes
It is a little sad that anyone can be so stupid to think a vaccine of all things should be a thing to become nationalistic about (and I include Tories in that), particularly as all pharma companies are about as international as you can get in terms of personnel. I imagine there were probably a fair few Scots in the AZ team, but they are probably not "true" Scots as they live in England and are therefore race traitors.
One of the funniest elements in the saga was the EU suing the “British” Astra Zeneca Plc when it turned out they actually had to sue the Swedish Astra Zeneca AB as that was who their contract was with….
That is assuming "they" thought it was "British". Maybe Macron did, or at least thought enough French voters did, so that it was a nice bit of populism to have a pop at what was thought to be a Rosbif company. I am not convinced it was necessarily anti-British by the EU, more of an attempt to cover up red faces in the Commission at their ineptitude in vaccine procurement.
Since they were bitterly complaining about the British vaccine roll out and not the Swedish one and threatening to block supplies to Britain, not Sweden it’s not a great stretch to conclude it was the British they sought to punish. And couldn’t.
It is possible, particularly if you wish to view it from a nationalistic perspective, and perhaps there were people in the EU countries in addition to M. Macron who viewed it that way. I think there is significant evidence IIRC that there were also a lot that did not.
On 21 March, Ursula von der Leyen had announced that the EU might ban AstraZeneca shipments from the EU to the UK unless AstraZeneca fulfill their contractual obligation first.[86] According to a Guardian analysis, an export ban has the potential to delay the British vaccination programme by two months and speed up the EU vaccination programme by one week
"Top Oxford professor Sir John Bell claims Macron and Merkel's trashing of AstraZeneca jab 'probably killed hundreds of thousands of people'
Mr Macron initially trashed AstraZeneca jab as 'quasi-ineffective' for old people German chancellor Angela Merkel echoed doubts by German experts on safety In a new programme about the jab, Sir John said they had blood on their hands BBC Two's AstraZeneca: A Vaccine For the World?, will air tonight at 9pm"
This is why Brexit will never be over. Johnny Foreigner is always sticking their foot out so that John Bull tumbles over it in a clownish manner. Never John Bull’s fault of course…
Not sure how you make that work.
In the case of Germany, someone invented some bollocks, somewhere in officialdom and then "leaked it" to the press.
In France, Macron became a self taught expert on COVID and vaccines (as stated by his spin doctors) and mouthed some more nonsense.
In neither case, could any actual facts be found to substantiate the claims. Just the reverse.
This is why England has lost her spunk. It was always a big boy what done it and run away.
It really is tragic to witness.
You are being needlessly stupid on this. The accusation is that Macron and the German journalist/minister killed their own people by what they said and did. I fail to understand what this has to do with England losing its 'spunk'?
He is so bitter, as is common in nationalists, that any sense of objectivity is impossible for him to relate to in his pursuit of his divisive attitudes
It is a little sad that anyone can be so stupid to think a vaccine of all things should be a thing to become nationalistic about (and I include Tories in that), particularly as all pharma companies are about as international as you can get in terms of personnel. I imagine there were probably a fair few Scots in the AZ team, but they are probably not "true" Scots as they live in England and are therefore race traitors.
One of the funniest elements in the saga was the EU suing the “British” Astra Zeneca Plc when it turned out they actually had to sue the Swedish Astra Zeneca AB as that was who their contract was with….
Who was the defendant? I don't think I have the contract still to hand.
I followed the European Commissioners lying their heads off rather more closely.
And the partly fictional accounts that have been attempted to be established as the narrative.
I still have to see an enquiry as to how many EU citizens have been unnecessarily killed by the initial mess up of the procurement, and the delays unnecessarily caused.
To really understand the humour in the lawsuit, you have to know about the history of von der Leyen...
As part of her tradition of screwing up every single job she took on, she had a habit of launching lawsuits that failed at suppliers. As part of her plan. Said lawsuits often involved not bothering to take into account minor details, such as what it said on the contract.....
For example, when in charge of the German Defense Ministry she tried suing Heckler & Koch on the grounds that their G36 rifle was rubbish. Heckler & Koch are possibly the best military firearms manufacturer on the planet and the G36 is one of their best sellers..... Strangely the lawsuit failed.
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
Hm - but I'd guess(?) one of the reasons you find religion easy is that you grew up in an idiom in which believing in God was seen as a reasonable way of making sense of the world.
I didn't, really. I grew up in a going-through-the-motions idiom. We had nominally religious assemblies at primary school, but no-one really believed it. You sung a hymn and said a prayer because that's what you were told to. The teachers no more believed than the children. When a teacher who genuinely did believe turned up - and complained that by messing about we were begrudging God 20 minutes of our day - the blank incomprehension of both children and other teachers was palpable. The unspoken consensus - no, we aren't, because he doesn't exist, not really.
(I also went to Sunday school. But that was just a reason for mum and dad to have a bit of alone time. And actual church gave me the willies. Again, the sincerity gap.)
And so while I was never told there's no God, I never grew up around any sort of sincere belief that God was a thing. I'm not trying to be virtuously atheistic: my atheism is in many ways as circumstantial as others' belief. But it's just not a concept which makes any sort of sense to me personally. It's not easy to believe. It doesn't make any sort of sense. Less sense than the absolutely vast scale of the galaxy and the counter-intuitivity of quantum physics, anyway.
A 40% WoW fall in cases by date reported, with the (more reliable but time lagged) fall in cases by date of test also gathering pace. No obvious data issues to drive it - though as always caution should be exercised with these figures.
Interestingly and not unrelatedly, the fall in testing also seems to be being maintained - almost below 1m tests per day now. Which is still far too many for my preferences, but perhaps indicates the public's increasing indifference to covid.
I think the indifference to Covid is quite widespread now. There are still a few iSage-type zealots out there. One of my wife's friends basically locked her 12yo son in his room for a week when he had Covid. They and some others went out last week for a meal and one suggested that she was like a prison jailer.
Unless some new much more deadly and transmissible variant suddenly crops up then Covid in the UK will be out of the pandemic and into an endemic state.
I think this is right, BUT, prepare for the next big fight. How do you define 'endemic'? I have a colleague who is still ultra cautious. I find it baffling. I'm not keen on catching covid, but have had my three shots of vaccine now, so chances are it would be mild to non-existent if I did get it. I'm not keen on catching colds, flu, norovirus etc either, but I don't shit myself every time I leave the house.*
*Probably not the best turn of phrase for norovirus, but hey...
That "trillions and trillions of galaxies" stuff needs to be done in a Brian Cox voice. Speaking of telly, I'm deep into a drama called The Sinner atm and looking forward to completing series 3 tonight. Fantastic (!) performance as the tortured 'heart of gold' Detective by Barry Gardiner. He might be a Chinese spy, and I don't for one minute condone that, but the guy can act.
Matthew Syed's article in the Sunday Times yesterday was interesting. He was arguing that trying to shut down non-standard points of view is almost always a bad idea. Worth reading IMO. (£)
A 40% WoW fall in cases by date reported, with the (more reliable but time lagged) fall in cases by date of test also gathering pace. No obvious data issues to drive it - though as always caution should be exercised with these figures.
Interestingly and not unrelatedly, the fall in testing also seems to be being maintained - almost below 1m tests per day now. Which is still far too many for my preferences, but perhaps indicates the public's increasing indifference to covid.
I think the indifference to Covid is quite widespread now. There are still a few iSage-type zealots out there. One of my wife's friends basically locked her 12yo son in his room for a week when he had Covid. They and some others went out last week for a meal and one suggested that she was like a prison jailer.
Unless some new much more deadly and transmissible variant suddenly crops up then Covid in the UK will be out of the pandemic and into an endemic state.
Cases are down, R has been below 1 for a while and positivity is down as well. Each time that has happened in the past, it has meant real falls in COVID.
Listening to a bit of Jimmy Carr. He is undoubtedly funny (haven't got to "the" bit).
As he himself notes however it is slightly "interesting" to have some of the minority jokes come from a straight white man.
One of if not the unfunniest comedienne's I have ever heard, rahter have my doo daa's in a vice than listen to him.
Who's your favourite comedienne, then Malcetta?
Would have said Victoria Wood but she is no longer with us, not that many about just now. I do like Mickey Flanagan and Peter Kay who is not about much these days. If historic , then Chic Murray , Billy Connolly , Tommy Cooper.
Not only was Billy Connolly a great comic he’s a cracking actor. He’s had a great career but his various plays set in Scotland are well worth catching. Chic Murray too was pretty decent as an actor. Was in a bizarre Play for Today called ‘curriculee curricula’.
If you have any doubts about Connolly's acting abilities watch his performance in Just Another Saturday.
Comments
The UK has made enough errors of it's own, it doesn't forever deserved criticism of others, anymore than they cannot criticise where we did cock up.
EDIT - and in others they are still stuck with the Chinese vaccine in question.
He's always been a pretty private guy, mind, so that is just the rumour.
I heard a comedian talk about how a women wrote a letter to complaining about him, how she found him very offensive the first time she saw him in the summer and even more so the second time she came to see him at Christmas.
Zemmour is presumably courting them, with his Boris comparison. Remember that Macron is seen by these people as a vile centrist/technocrat/europhile/traitor
If one rightwing candidate can sew up this eurosceptic vote, then they will be the final challenger against Macron. Le Pen has tilted "left" on Europe so she has allowed this flank to become exposed
I am sure pretty sure Macron will win, he has a very divided opposition
The big picture, however, is that Scots will never knowingly vote to make themselves poorer. Everything else is just so much wind and water. The ridiculous pensions rammy just shows what a dead duck Indy is becoming, as the economic case is unwinnable.
60% of Le Pen voters and 59% of Les Republicains voters and even 55% of Melenchon voters had a favourable view of Boris.
Boris only had a negative rating with voters for Macron's En Marche and Socialist voters and in Paris, with 57% of Parisians having an unfavourable view of Johnson
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-boris-is-loved-by-the-french
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/13/easy-see-even-french-prefer-boris-surly-macron/
https://www.lepoint.fr/debats/boris-johnson-un-modele-politique-pour-la-france-21-05-2021-2427491_2.php
Obviously Michel Palin was doing it before Connolly.
Everyone who was there paid for a ticket with “Jimmy Carr. His Darkest Material. Live Taping” printed on it. They can’t really argue they didn’t know what to expect!
Furthermore, a scintilla of doubt in Scots minds about their pension will guarantee the union
Well, that's ok then.
I also think that as they seem to think they should have one every 8 to 10 years there should be an option for them to re-join in 8 to 10 years later provided rUK has a referendum to approve.
I think he changed name because I kept calling him out for his refusal to admit that Christmas has not been cancelled in Gibraltar.
But to be serious for a second, a 'belief in God' only makes sense to me - as a sentence, I mean, not the sentiment itself - if it means believing a human being is more than flesh & blood. We have a body or we *are* a body? Which is it? If the first, then the bit which isn't a body - some essential "I" - is in the spiritual world and it's then a short step from this to "God".
Me, I lack this belief in something (about us) other than our bodies. But if others have it, that's terrific and I would actually quite like to join them. It would, I think, make for a better life experience - and you'd never be disabused of it since when you die and it turns out you're wrong you won't know it and so will never find out you were wrong. This is why I think religious faith (in the way I'm defining it) is rational. Nevertheless I don't have any.
I distinguish between this and the rules dictated by religions for how life is lived. Where these are about clothes and food and buildings and methods of worship etc, that's an 'each to their own' affair, but it's a different matter where they effectively cast groups of people (eg women, homosexuals, non believers) as inferior beings. There's a lot of this about and I have no problem declaring it - with no caveats - to be wrong.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-myth-of-the-typical-brexit-voter
I particularly liked this bit:
"People given to lazy stereotypes might be surprised that 32 per cent of people who voted Liberal Democrat in 2015 voted Leave in 2016. Indeed the only group you could safely stereotype were Guardian readers, 88 per cent of whom voted Remain."
Even to one who quite likes this theme, the finding that more than one in ten Guardian readers voted for Christmas seems slightly surprising.
"Dydy e ddim yn glown i gyd, ond mae’n gymeriad sy’n hoffus iawn."
And we don't know what he was asked as they haven't released the full interview.
If he was asked,
"Mae'n swnio fel glown llwyr. Ydy Boris yn glown llwyr?"
Then "Dydy e ddim yn glown i gyd" is a fairly reasonable response.
Of course, all the other key metrics are heading in the right direction.
No wait.... {guilty}
Should I have let him out?
Luckily, I got on Pecresse just before she shortened and laid back near the peak, so I'm (barely) green on French election. Would be nice if Pecresse would now implode and let me make some money on Le Pen as well though! Why can't she say she's like Johnson?
No obvious data issues to drive it - though as always caution should be exercised with these figures.
Interestingly and not unrelatedly, the fall in testing also seems to be being maintained - almost below 1m tests per day now. Which is still far too many for my preferences, but perhaps indicates the public's increasing indifference to covid.
However there are plenty of boilers still in place that are 1980s if not 1970s vintage.
These need to be dealt with, or considered.
https://youtu.be/k_3Q9X03Yeg?t=76
It is not my rough drunken guess of "seventy billion" (which is itself quite a high number), it is two TRILLION, ie two million million
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/10/18/this-is-how-we-know-there-are-two-trillion-galaxies-in-the-universe/?sh=83cced95a67b
Every galaxy contains - on average - 100-200 BILLION stars (some are much smaller, others much bigger)
So that's TWO TRILLION times 200 BILLION = the number of stars in the universe
In actual numbers that is
400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
That is the estimated number of stars in the observable universe, and that number keeps going up the more we explore. And we have only really just started exploring, beyond our own planet. And above this hovers the idea of the multiverse: that we are just one cosmos amongst many many many, or indeed an infinite number
This, I submit, is ONE reason Why Religion. The science of some cheeky vertical monkeys who wank half the day will never be able to comprehend this vastness. This should not stop us trying. But, eeeesh, God is a better answer for much of everyday human life, and indeed much spiritual inspiration. We are meant to believe, so believe, the way we are meant to enjoy booze, so drink
Perhaps he could have been drunk the first time, or had an argument with his pussycat.
Similar to the coal gas to natural gas thing, back in the day....
Pecresse won't though but she will harden her line on immigration and security in the runoff. She is playing a clever game, stay largely centrist in the first round to tie up her core Les Republicains vote while Zemmour splits the Le Pen vote.
Then once Zemmour and Le Pen have knocked each other out she will swing to the populist right to pick up their voters as her best chance of beating Macron. Les Republicains + Zemmour + Le Pen + Dupont Aignan voters combined gets her to 50%. If Macron does not similarly get Melenchon voters behind him then he loses, as En Marche + Socialist + Green voters are less than 50%
Unless some new much more deadly and transmissible variant suddenly crops up then Covid in the UK will be out of the pandemic and into an endemic state.
Bloke comes in to work all sad
Bloke: I just found out that my grandfather died in the holocaust.
Everyone: Oh, thats terrible.
{sometime later, after many commiserations}
Bloke: Yes, he fell out of a guard tower.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Just-Another-Saturday-Play-Today/dp/B0794FYTFJ
He's superb.
https://wafflesatnoon.com/stars-vs-sand-vs-human-atoms-vs-insects/
(Random from a quick googling of well know more atoms in body than stars in the universe claim)
Tangential - I've always loved the scene in Local Hero where the guy who owns the beach offers to sell if for a price set by the number of grains of sand in his hand, $1 per grain and the buyer refuses. Humans aren't good at big (and not so big) numbers.
Edit £1/grain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSMOQKNXbV8
I followed the European Commissioners lying their heads off rather more closely.
And the partly fictional accounts that have been attempted to be established as the narrative.
I still have to see an enquiry as to how many EU citizens have been unnecessarily killed by the initial mess up of the procurement, and the delays unnecessarily caused.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/07/rishi-sunaks-alcohol-tax-rise-will-wipe-brexit-benefits/
Being teetotal is one thing, but cranking up the price for everyone else suggests a failure to learn one of the lessons of partygate. Which admittedly wasn't much of a thing when he did the cranking. This has to change if Sunak wants the gig.
https://twitter.com/kierancfc88/status/1304043873942073345?s=21
Dr John Campbell's latest video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMf-Zq7xJcY
They're even crapping up our nature reserves.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/07/dog-pee-and-poo-harming-nature-reserves-study
Dog tax, anyone?
- Cases down. Yes, it is Monday. But R has been solidly below 1 across all regions for a bit now.
- Admissions down. R solid below 1
- MV beds down
- In hospital down
- Deaths down
https://tinyurl.com/3xrwmrhx
https://tinyurl.com/3xrwmrhx
As part of her tradition of screwing up every single job she took on, she had a habit of launching lawsuits that failed at suppliers. As part of her plan. Said lawsuits often involved not bothering to take into account minor details, such as what it said on the contract.....
For example, when in charge of the German Defense Ministry she tried suing Heckler & Koch on the grounds that their G36 rifle was rubbish. Heckler & Koch are possibly the best military firearms manufacturer on the planet and the G36 is one of their best sellers..... Strangely the lawsuit failed.
I didn't, really. I grew up in a going-through-the-motions idiom. We had nominally religious assemblies at primary school, but no-one really believed it. You sung a hymn and said a prayer because that's what you were told to. The teachers no more believed than the children. When a teacher who genuinely did believe turned up - and complained that by messing about we were begrudging God 20 minutes of our day - the blank incomprehension of both children and other teachers was palpable. The unspoken consensus - no, we aren't, because he doesn't exist, not really.
(I also went to Sunday school. But that was just a reason for mum and dad to have a bit of alone time. And actual church gave me the willies. Again, the sincerity gap.)
And so while I was never told there's no God, I never grew up around any sort of sincere belief that God was a thing. I'm not trying to be virtuously atheistic: my atheism is in many ways as circumstantial as others' belief. But it's just not a concept which makes any sort of sense to me personally. It's not easy to believe. It doesn't make any sort of sense. Less sense than the absolutely vast scale of the galaxy and the counter-intuitivity of quantum physics, anyway.
I have a colleague who is still ultra cautious. I find it baffling. I'm not keen on catching covid, but have had my three shots of vaccine now, so chances are it would be mild to non-existent if I did get it. I'm not keen on catching colds, flu, norovirus etc either, but I don't shit myself every time I leave the house.*
*Probably not the best turn of phrase for norovirus, but hey...
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-right-to-speak-nonsense-in-public-is-a-pillar-of-democracy-nxpx32508
I see the Captain Tom Foundation made over £1m last year, but only donated £160k.
Another £160k was consumed in “management fees”.
And to think, someone was convicted (in Scotland) of sending a “grossly offensive” tweet about the dead Captain.
A tweet which, by the way, was far less offensive than Jimmy Carr’s joke about killing gypsies.
The demand for dog food is helping to drive deforestation.
There is a not inconsiderable environmental case to be made against domestic dogs.
Taking a clown to the palace does not make him a king.
It makes the palace a circus.
And which idiot appointed them?