Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
Half witted civilian toffish wanker on expedition led by toffish RN half witted wanker. Norwegian proles had it easy because actually it is easy, if you know what you are doing.
The scientific justification for the Worst Journey was particularly hilarious.
I seem to remember they did get one emperor penguin egg back to london. And then it was lost
Certainly it had a bathetic resolution. He was supposedly a broken man forever after
He was, and fuck I feel sorry for him. He was a lifelong victim of very severe depression because he was forever thinking omg if I had just gone on another 30 miles from One Ton Camp I would have found and rescued them. True but only an issue because of Scott's monumental self aggrandizing incompetence.
Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
Indeed. Bring it on.
Boris will go full term 2024 👍
Yes. I very much agree. Too many variables to call whether he'll win or lose then. But it is exactly those variables which make it extremely unlikely he'll go before
I also thought the graphic showed Labour on a smaller average now than under Corbyn last time, opposite to the “doing slightly better now” suggestion. Labour don’t even have as much voter enthusiasm for them today as under Corbyn 4 years ago? 😮
This ties in It seems with the consensus from the threads today, very much of the opinion it’s looking like Starmer coming out of this set of Locals as the Leader under pressure.
Boris has backed the winner in Ukraine crisis, and will be reaping the dividends from that for some time to come, just as my Dad told me yesterday. The penny has dropped for me now. 🤦♀️
Yeah but, I don't remember Starmer backing Putin, but if he did it was a bad call.
I’m with the posters who explain Starmer, and Davey, done their best with this, but there is little they can do about it from opposition benches, if those in power handle a crisis well and get a bounce from it.
I doubt you are correct, there is no Falklands Factor.
Johnson can claim victory if Putin is removed, but no one but the witheringly stupid will believe he had any direct responsibility.
Meanwhile hitherto Conservative voters are weighing up whether to feed the children and default on the mortgage and the car lease repayment, or starve the children and pay the dual fuel bill.
You are not properly engaging with this Pete.
Considering my analysis is right on this, and I am not alone, as all the Conservatives on this site seem quite confident about this set of elections now? moderate losses for Tory, only moderate gains for Labour, a degree of “loading votes” where Labour don’t need it whilst they still struggle in GE battleground like midlands - is there an argument, the May locals point to working majority for Conservatives in a June General Election - Why doesn’t Boris call that election?
In favour is,
Cash in on Getting Covid Done, Getting Brexit Done, and saving Ukraine whilst successes still fresh in voters minds.
Secure 5 years working majority before cost of living crisis next winter, and a stagflation recession next year or in 2024, eave them a long way to catch up in the polls in election 24/ Jan 25.
Big Dog Saved. Well and truly saved. After a GE win, 5 years working majority, he is safe for years, regardless what else is thrown at him or fall out from what already has been.
Labour not ready, Starmer not ready. Electorate still not sure about opposition leader, his party and its policies.
If the May locals point to Conservatives getting working majority in June election, and it looks like 23 and 24 could be tricky for them to hold an election in, we have to consider possibility there is a General Election within the next 3 months. Don’t we?
Check out my posts. I have previously said 2022 GE. Nonetheless good luck with that.
The best Labour can hope for at the next GE is a hung Parliament, that is not out of the question. The LDs rather than SNP could hold the balance of power.
The longer Johnson remains in power the more people twig that he is not in it for UK citizens but for Boris Johnson.
Even if there had been a window for a "Brexit: tick, Covid: tick" election (and it would have been taking the electoral mickey), Paterson and Parties closed the smallish window when it could have happened with the Conservatives ahead. (Even on the new boundaries, Conservatives need to be about 2 points ahead of Labour to unambiguously win). Now, the government has little choice but to swim through the river of sewage and stagflation and hope to reach the other bank sometime in 2024.
The other thing to consider is that there are different sorts of hung parliament. Roughly, the sequence goes
Conservative working majority - Conservatives unworkable majority - Coalition of Chaos 1.1 (Conservatives cut a deal with DUP) - Coalition of Chaos 2.0 (SNP needed for the centre-left to outvote Con + DUP) - Stablish coalition (SNP can be ignored; centre-left outvotes Con + DUP even when the SNP sits on their kilts) - Labour unworkable majority
As long as the SNP have a blocking bloc, it's really hard to see Labour winning a majority. There are just too many seats blanked out. Even a stablish "ignore the jocks" coalition is a heck of an achievement. The fact it's even on the agenda, especially against Boring Old Starmer is a sign of how much of a horlicks Bozza is making of things.
I think most of my posts are on this kind of subject, but I am of the opinion that a Labour majority (or stablish coalition) are necessary to secure the future of the Union. There are a large number (not sure how large, but large) of SNP supporters who see the route to another referendum through a Labour Government reliant on the SNP. If this route is blocked, then I think the constitutional issues begin to fall back. SNP loses some support, their vulnerabilities in Government become prominent and Scottish politics begins to look more pluralistic. But it's a narrow path, requiring not only the correct Parliamentary arithmetic but also the expectation in the electorate that Labour will not be dependent on the SNP to form a Government. If it even looks like the SNP are within a sniff of being able to leverage Labour, Middle England takes a shit and Labour are more likely to be deprived of the opportunity to form a Government.
Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
Indeed. Bring it on.
The Tory offer ‘vote for us now, because we’ve trashed the economy and we’re worried you might notice’ is pretty unique.
Honestly probably not that unique. It's the basis of lot of politicians the world over going for earlier elections if they can.
Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DENIED NEW TRIAL OVER JUROR’S PAST SEX ABUSE
That seems a bit rubbish. If you select a jury on the basis that It's reelly important that you weren't abused as a child and then a juror after finding the D guilty as fuck says Yeah well I had the ass abused off me as a child, is how I relate to the victims here, how does that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Just as a matter of interest, how many bottles of Cote du Rhone did you sink this evening?
Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
Indeed. Bring it on.
Boris will go full term 2024 👍
And then win a 5th term 👍👍
Do you honestly think he's been a good PM?
Better than Starmer would be
Why?
Cos Boris isn't Labour
I knew asking you would be a waste of time and it has been. Good evening.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DENIED NEW TRIAL OVER JUROR’S PAST SEX ABUSE
That seems a bit rubbish. If you select a jury on the basis that It's reelly important that you weren't abused as a child and then a juror after finding the D guilty as fuck says Yeah well I had the ass abused off me as a child, is how I relate to the victims here, how does that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Just as a matter of interest, how many bottles of Cote du Rhone did you sink this evening?
More than zero, less than 2. I stand by what I wrote though
The juror in question was earlier given immunity from prosecution. He had asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake".
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
Indeed. Bring it on.
Boris will go full term 2024 👍
And then win a 5th term 👍👍
Will he win third and fourth terms before that, or just go straight for the fifth term?
I also thought the graphic showed Labour on a smaller average now than under Corbyn last time, opposite to the “doing slightly better now” suggestion. Labour don’t even have as much voter enthusiasm for them today as under Corbyn 4 years ago? 😮
This ties in It seems with the consensus from the threads today, very much of the opinion it’s looking like Starmer coming out of this set of Locals as the Leader under pressure.
Boris has backed the winner in Ukraine crisis, and will be reaping the dividends from that for some time to come, just as my Dad told me yesterday. The penny has dropped for me now. 🤦♀️
Yeah but, I don't remember Starmer backing Putin, but if he did it was a bad call.
I’m with the posters who explain Starmer, and Davey, done their best with this, but there is little they can do about it from opposition benches, if those in power handle a crisis well and get a bounce from it.
I doubt you are correct, there is no Falklands Factor.
Johnson can claim victory if Putin is removed, but no one but the witheringly stupid will believe he had any direct responsibility.
Meanwhile hitherto Conservative voters are weighing up whether to feed the children and default on the mortgage and the car lease repayment, or starve the children and pay the dual fuel bill.
You are not properly engaging with this Pete.
Considering my analysis is right on this, and I am not alone, as all the Conservatives on this site seem quite confident about this set of elections now? moderate losses for Tory, only moderate gains for Labour, a degree of “loading votes” where Labour don’t need it whilst they still struggle in GE battleground like midlands - is there an argument, the May locals point to working majority for Conservatives in a June General Election - Why doesn’t Boris call that election?
In favour is,
Cash in on Getting Covid Done, Getting Brexit Done, and saving Ukraine whilst successes still fresh in voters minds.
Secure 5 years working majority before cost of living crisis next winter, and a stagflation recession next year or in 2024, eave them a long way to catch up in the polls in election 24/ Jan 25.
Big Dog Saved. Well and truly saved. After a GE win, 5 years working majority, he is safe for years, regardless what else is thrown at him or fall out from what already has been.
Labour not ready, Starmer not ready. Electorate still not sure about opposition leader, his party and its policies.
If the May locals point to Conservatives getting working majority in June election, and it looks like 23 and 24 could be tricky for them to hold an election in, we have to consider possibility there is a General Election within the next 3 months. Don’t we?
Check out my posts. I have previously said 2022 GE. Nonetheless good luck with that.
The best Labour can hope for at the next GE is a hung Parliament, that is not out of the question. The LDs rather than SNP could hold the balance of power.
The longer Johnson remains in power the more people twig that he is not in it for UK citizens but for Boris Johnson.
Even if there had been a window for a "Brexit: tick, Covid: tick" election (and it would have been taking the electoral mickey), Paterson and Parties closed the smallish window when it could have happened with the Conservatives ahead. (Even on the new boundaries, Conservatives need to be about 2 points ahead of Labour to unambiguously win). Now, the government has little choice but to swim through the river of sewage and stagflation and hope to reach the other bank sometime in 2024.
The other thing to consider is that there are different sorts of hung parliament. Roughly, the sequence goes
Conservative working majority - Conservatives unworkable majority - Coalition of Chaos 1.1 (Conservatives cut a deal with DUP) - Coalition of Chaos 2.0 (SNP needed for the centre-left to outvote Con + DUP) - Stablish coalition (SNP can be ignored; centre-left outvotes Con + DUP even when the SNP sits on their kilts) - Labour unworkable majority
As long as the SNP have a blocking bloc, it's really hard to see Labour winning a majority. There are just too many seats blanked out. Even a stablish "ignore the jocks" coalition is a heck of an achievement. The fact it's even on the agenda, especially against Boring Old Starmer is a sign of how much of a horlicks Bozza is making of things.
I think most of my posts are on this kind of subject, but I am of the opinion that a Labour majority (or stablish coalition) are necessary to secure the future of the Union. There are a large number (not sure how large, but large) of SNP supporters who see the route to another referendum through a Labour Government reliant on the SNP. If this route is blocked, then I think the constitutional issues begin to fall back. SNP loses some support, their vulnerabilities in Government become prominent and Scottish politics begins to look more pluralistic. But it's a narrow path, requiring not only the correct Parliamentary arithmetic but also the expectation in the electorate that Labour will not be dependent on the SNP to form a Government. If it even looks like the SNP are within a sniff of being able to leverage Labour, Middle England takes a shit and Labour are more likely to be deprived of the opportunity to form a Government.
Agreed. The ideal for Labour is to enter the next GE being able to say "voting Conservative strengthens the SNP", which would be true if the choice boils down to Labour led CofC or non chaotic Labour coalition. But a tough (maybe impossible) message to sell.
As with many other issues in Britain, the outline of an answer is there (in this case, Devomax with a thistle on top, and opt-out Devo for parts of England that want it. Me, I'd go for the original ITV areas, so we can have a regional government covering Midlands weekdays and London weekends.) But warriors on both sides prevent a broadly acceptable answer being fleshed out.
Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
Indeed. Bring it on.
Boris will go full term 2024 👍
And then win a 5th term 👍👍
Will he win third and fourth terms before that, or just go straight for the fifth term?
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DENIED NEW TRIAL OVER JUROR’S PAST SEX ABUSE
That seems a bit rubbish. If you select a jury on the basis that It's reelly important that you weren't abused as a child and then a juror after finding the D guilty as fuck says Yeah well I had the ass abused off me as a child, is how I relate to the victims here, how does that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Just as a matter of interest, how many bottles of Cote du Rhone did you sink this evening?
More than zero, less than 2. I stand by what I wrote though
The juror in question was earlier given immunity from prosecution. He had asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake".
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DENIED NEW TRIAL OVER JUROR’S PAST SEX ABUSE
That seems a bit rubbish. If you select a jury on the basis that It's reelly important that you weren't abused as a child and then a juror after finding the D guilty as fuck says Yeah well I had the ass abused off me as a child, is how I relate to the victims here, how does that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Just as a matter of interest, how many bottles of Cote du Rhone did you sink this evening?
More than zero, less than 2. I stand by what I wrote though
The juror in question was earlier given immunity from prosecution. He had asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake".
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
"Highly unfortunate" FFS. Either it's bollocks or it isn't.
Just to be clear I am not a Ghislaine fanboi, but here's a miscarriage of justice. Right here.
Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
Indeed. Bring it on.
Boris will go full term 2024 👍
And then win a 5th term 👍👍
Do you honestly think he's been a good PM?
Better than Starmer would be
Why?
Cos Boris isn't Labour
I knew asking you would be a waste of time and it has been. Good evening.
Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
Indeed. Bring it on.
Boris will go full term 2024 👍
And then win a 5th term 👍👍
Will he win third and fourth terms before that, or just go straight for the fifth term?
2010 2015 2017 2019 20?? 5 terms 👍
He won the 2019 election, but he wasn't even an MP for the 2010 one.
Exciting that Tories think Boris might go early and do a Theresa. Smacks of hubris. Personally I Can’t see him chucking away 3 years and a 80 seat majority myself, but you can but hope.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DENIED NEW TRIAL OVER JUROR’S PAST SEX ABUSE
That seems a bit rubbish. If you select a jury on the basis that It's reelly important that you weren't abused as a child and then a juror after finding the D guilty as fuck says Yeah well I had the ass abused off me as a child, is how I relate to the victims here, how does that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Just as a matter of interest, how many bottles of Cote du Rhone did you sink this evening?
More than zero, less than 2. I stand by what I wrote though
The juror in question was earlier given immunity from prosecution. He had asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake".
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
"Highly unfortunate" FFS. Either it's bollocks or it isn't.
Just to be clear I am not a Ghislaine fanboi, but here's a miscarriage of justice. Right here.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DENIED NEW TRIAL OVER JUROR’S PAST SEX ABUSE
That seems a bit rubbish. If you select a jury on the basis that It's reelly important that you weren't abused as a child and then a juror after finding the D guilty as fuck says Yeah well I had the ass abused off me as a child, is how I relate to the victims here, how does that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Just as a matter of interest, how many bottles of Cote du Rhone did you sink this evening?
More than zero, less than 2. I stand by what I wrote though
The juror in question was earlier given immunity from prosecution. He had asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake".
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
So what?
So, when this fuckwit was selected for the jury, it was life or death important whether he had been abused as a child. But now he has delivered a verdict which entails a life without parole sentence it turns out to be a Yeah, whatever issue. Which?
Jesus wept, Oryx had 25 Russian tanks destroyed today and he says he still has a backlog of 180-200 vehicles to get through
Men can be replaced, and artillery can pound people into the dirt, but how do they keep up their new plans if they are losing so many vehicles and other equipment? They have thousands, but they won't all be useful or even able to be sent into the quagmire.
Jesus wept, Oryx had 25 Russian tanks destroyed today and he says he still has a backlog of 180-200 vehicles to get through
The “tactical withdrawal” North of Kyiv seems to have turned into something of a rout.
I think most of us still expect the tide to turn at some point, but what if it doesn’t? What if Ukraine takes back territory in Donbas and is welcomed by the population? They’ve had a pretty ugly 8 years since 2014 after all.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DENIED NEW TRIAL OVER JUROR’S PAST SEX ABUSE
That seems a bit rubbish. If you select a jury on the basis that It's reelly important that you weren't abused as a child and then a juror after finding the D guilty as fuck says Yeah well I had the ass abused off me as a child, is how I relate to the victims here, how does that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Just as a matter of interest, how many bottles of Cote du Rhone did you sink this evening?
More than zero, less than 2. I stand by what I wrote though
The juror in question was earlier given immunity from prosecution. He had asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake".
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
"Highly unfortunate" FFS. Either it's bollocks or it isn't.
Just to be clear I am not a Ghislaine fanboi, but here's a miscarriage of justice. Right here.
You sound pretty keen on Ghislaine to me.
Because I think justice is justice? This isn't difficult: if someone plain lied on a point which everyone agreed was crucial to his eligibility to be on a jury, he was not eligible to be on the jury, surely?
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DENIED NEW TRIAL OVER JUROR’S PAST SEX ABUSE
That seems a bit rubbish. If you select a jury on the basis that It's reelly important that you weren't abused as a child and then a juror after finding the D guilty as fuck says Yeah well I had the ass abused off me as a child, is how I relate to the victims here, how does that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Just as a matter of interest, how many bottles of Cote du Rhone did you sink this evening?
More than zero, less than 2. I stand by what I wrote though
The juror in question was earlier given immunity from prosecution. He had asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake".
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
"Highly unfortunate" FFS. Either it's bollocks or it isn't.
Just to be clear I am not a Ghislaine fanboi, but here's a miscarriage of justice. Right here.
You sound pretty keen on Ghislaine to me.
Because I think justice is justice? This isn't difficult: if someone plain lied on a point which everyone agreed was crucial to his eligibility to be on a jury, he was not eligible to be on the jury, surely?
Jesus wept, Oryx had 25 Russian tanks destroyed today and he says he still has a backlog of 180-200 vehicles to get through
The “tactical withdrawal” North of Kyiv seems to have turned into something of a rout.
I think most of us still expect the tide to turn at some point, but what if it doesn’t? What if Ukraine takes back territory in Donbas and is welcomed by the population? They’ve had a pretty ugly 8 years since 2014 after all.
My gut feel is that it will be Russia that breaks, not Ukraine. There are obvious strains in their military performance and there is only some much any fighting force can take.
Jesus wept, Oryx had 25 Russian tanks destroyed today and he says he still has a backlog of 180-200 vehicles to get through
Men can be replaced, and artillery can pound people into the dirt, but how do they keep up their new plans if they are losing so many vehicles and other equipment? They have thousands, but they won't all be useful or even able to be sent into the quagmire.
They can’t. Most of their reserve equipment is probably unusable.
Jesus wept, Oryx had 25 Russian tanks destroyed today and he says he still has a backlog of 180-200 vehicles to get through
Men can be replaced, and artillery can pound people into the dirt, but how do they keep up their new plans if they are losing so many vehicles and other equipment? They have thousands, but they won't all be useful or even able to be sent into the quagmire.
They can’t. Most of their reserve equipment is probably unusable.
+1
The idea that Russia has loads of really great tanks that it just chose not to use in the invasion is for the birds.
Jesus wept, Oryx had 25 Russian tanks destroyed today and he says he still has a backlog of 180-200 vehicles to get through
Men can be replaced, and artillery can pound people into the dirt, but how do they keep up their new plans if they are losing so many vehicles and other equipment? They have thousands, but they won't all be useful or even able to be sent into the quagmire.
They can’t. Most of their reserve equipment is probably unusable.
+1
The idea that Russia has loads of really great tanks that it just chose not to use in the invasion is for the birds.
One of their conspiracy theories was that Ukraine was going to attack them with biological weapons delivered by migratory birds, so perhaps they literally are for the birds.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DENIED NEW TRIAL OVER JUROR’S PAST SEX ABUSE
That seems a bit rubbish. If you select a jury on the basis that It's reelly important that you weren't abused as a child and then a juror after finding the D guilty as fuck says Yeah well I had the ass abused off me as a child, is how I relate to the victims here, how does that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Just as a matter of interest, how many bottles of Cote du Rhone did you sink this evening?
More than zero, less than 2. I stand by what I wrote though
The juror in question was earlier given immunity from prosecution. He had asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake".
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
"Highly unfortunate" FFS. Either it's bollocks or it isn't.
Just to be clear I am not a Ghislaine fanboi, but here's a miscarriage of justice. Right here.
You sound pretty keen on Ghislaine to me.
Because I think justice is justice? This isn't difficult: if someone plain lied on a point which everyone agreed was crucial to his eligibility to be on a jury, he was not eligible to be on the jury, surely?
So what if he was abused? It's not like he procured girls for Epstein.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DENIED NEW TRIAL OVER JUROR’S PAST SEX ABUSE
That seems a bit rubbish. If you select a jury on the basis that It's reelly important that you weren't abused as a child and then a juror after finding the D guilty as fuck says Yeah well I had the ass abused off me as a child, is how I relate to the victims here, how does that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Just as a matter of interest, how many bottles of Cote du Rhone did you sink this evening?
More than zero, less than 2. I stand by what I wrote though
The juror in question was earlier given immunity from prosecution. He had asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake".
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
"Highly unfortunate" FFS. Either it's bollocks or it isn't.
Just to be clear I am not a Ghislaine fanboi, but here's a miscarriage of justice. Right here.
You sound pretty keen on Ghislaine to me.
Because I think justice is justice? This isn't difficult: if someone plain lied on a point which everyone agreed was crucial to his eligibility to be on a jury, he was not eligible to be on the jury, surely?
So what if he was abused? It's not like he procured girls for Epstein.
Do you have any proof he did not procure girls for Epstein?
Jesus wept, Oryx had 25 Russian tanks destroyed today and he says he still has a backlog of 180-200 vehicles to get through
Without wishing to diminish this welcome news too much, there needs to be a bit of caution over daily "losses" as the date of the loss is when the loss is verified rather than when it happens. So Russia retreating in some areas (which is partly tactical, partly not) allows losses that happened a while ago to be verified. Therefore, 25 losses confirmed today may well not be the same as 25 losses today.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DENIED NEW TRIAL OVER JUROR’S PAST SEX ABUSE
That seems a bit rubbish. If you select a jury on the basis that It's reelly important that you weren't abused as a child and then a juror after finding the D guilty as fuck says Yeah well I had the ass abused off me as a child, is how I relate to the victims here, how does that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Just as a matter of interest, how many bottles of Cote du Rhone did you sink this evening?
More than zero, less than 2. I stand by what I wrote though
The juror in question was earlier given immunity from prosecution. He had asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake".
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
"Highly unfortunate" FFS. Either it's bollocks or it isn't.
Just to be clear I am not a Ghislaine fanboi, but here's a miscarriage of justice. Right here.
You sound pretty keen on Ghislaine to me.
Because I think justice is justice? This isn't difficult: if someone plain lied on a point which everyone agreed was crucial to his eligibility to be on a jury, he was not eligible to be on the jury, surely?
The reason why there are as many as 12 jurors is precisely because people are flawed. If you pick away at any jury, you'll find one or two people who are eccentric, thick, dishonest, predisposed, or even who have done worse than the one in the dock. But you don't declare a mistrial simply on that basis, as you've got a fairly large panel and they need to deliver a unanimous verdict (or in some cases - although not this one - a 10-2 majority one).
With all these matters, showing there was some kind of irregularity isn't enough so secure an acquittal or retrail. You need to show it makes the verdict unsafe.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DENIED NEW TRIAL OVER JUROR’S PAST SEX ABUSE
That seems a bit rubbish. If you select a jury on the basis that It's reelly important that you weren't abused as a child and then a juror after finding the D guilty as fuck says Yeah well I had the ass abused off me as a child, is how I relate to the victims here, how does that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Just as a matter of interest, how many bottles of Cote du Rhone did you sink this evening?
More than zero, less than 2. I stand by what I wrote though
The juror in question was earlier given immunity from prosecution. He had asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake".
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
"Highly unfortunate" FFS. Either it's bollocks or it isn't.
Just to be clear I am not a Ghislaine fanboi, but here's a miscarriage of justice. Right here.
You sound pretty keen on Ghislaine to me.
Because I think justice is justice? This isn't difficult: if someone plain lied on a point which everyone agreed was crucial to his eligibility to be on a jury, he was not eligible to be on the jury, surely?
The reason why there are as many as 12 jurors is precisely because people are flawed. If you pick away at any jury, you'll find one or two people who are eccentric, thick, dishonest, predisposed, or even who have done worse than the one in the dock. But you don't declare a mistrial simply on that basis, as you've got a fairly large panel and they need to deliver a unanimous verdict (or in some cases - although not this one - a 10-2 majority one).
With all these matters, showing there was some kind of irregularity isn't enough so secure an acquittal or retrail. You need to show it makes the verdict unsafe.
Didn't he boast about how he swayed the jury during deliberations?
I also thought the graphic showed Labour on a smaller average now than under Corbyn last time, opposite to the “doing slightly better now” suggestion. Labour don’t even have as much voter enthusiasm for them today as under Corbyn 4 years ago? 😮
This ties in It seems with the consensus from the threads today, very much of the opinion it’s looking like Starmer coming out of this set of Locals as the Leader under pressure.
Boris has backed the winner in Ukraine crisis, and will be reaping the dividends from that for some time to come, just as my Dad told me yesterday. The penny has dropped for me now. 🤦♀️
Boris is the world's most flaccid micropenis. Russia on Ukraine action was the best world event that one could possibly imagine happening for him and he still can't get it up, sorry, a lead in the polls against Starmer. He is a fat lying bastard, any Ukr credit goes to Baldy Wallace, and the Tories are going to get utterly crucified in May. Trust me on this.
Thank goodness Johnson and Sunak have a handle on the economy. Imagine if that were to run out of control.
Yeah. Sound money and low taxation innit.
Yet again I disagree with both of you. As my Dad explained why he liked the budget yesterday, it wasn’t a “populist” budget, it was fiscally literate in an inflationary situation to sit on the money for when growth is threatened and recession looming. Splashing the cash at this inflationary juncture, as a Lab Lib coalition assure us they would have done last week, would have been popular, in the short term, but would have made the medium term and longer term future for those “you were trying to help” even worse, wouldn’t it - with the money blown and inflation worse, and not the ammo to fight looming stagflation.
It wasn’t “populist” hence Boris moaning about it. splurge at this moment makes it worse in long run, if it gets to stagflation, then spend some money you have saved, as stagflation is about demand not supply so you don’t tighten to deal with it but spend.
It actually seems quite solid now the initial moaning is over.
The strongest objection to the budget was not fiscal tightness, but that such help as there was in it ignored those who are least least well off. Who are going to be those worst impacted by energy prices rises.
Ukrainian forces found dozens of Ukrainian civilians murdered in cold blood by Russian forces in Bucha northwest of Kyiv today. Some of them had their hands tied behind their backs. https://twitter.com/worldonalert/status/1510039148299751424
Ukrainian forces found dozens of Ukrainian civilians murdered in cold blood by Russian forces in Bucha northwest of Kyiv today. Some of them had their hands tied behind their backs. https://twitter.com/worldonalert/status/1510039148299751424
Lots of looting of homes too. This destroyed truck was carrying stolen washing machines.
GHISLAINE MAXWELL DENIED NEW TRIAL OVER JUROR’S PAST SEX ABUSE
That seems a bit rubbish. If you select a jury on the basis that It's reelly important that you weren't abused as a child and then a juror after finding the D guilty as fuck says Yeah well I had the ass abused off me as a child, is how I relate to the victims here, how does that not be a miscarriage of justice?
Just as a matter of interest, how many bottles of Cote du Rhone did you sink this evening?
More than zero, less than 2. I stand by what I wrote though
The juror in question was earlier given immunity from prosecution. He had asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake".
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
"Highly unfortunate" FFS. Either it's bollocks or it isn't.
Just to be clear I am not a Ghislaine fanboi, but here's a miscarriage of justice. Right here.
It may be a mistrial - and actually I agree with you it should have been ruled as one - but I think it's more than stretching matters to call it a 'miscarriage of justice.'
I also thought the graphic showed Labour on a smaller average now than under Corbyn last time, opposite to the “doing slightly better now” suggestion. Labour don’t even have as much voter enthusiasm for them today as under Corbyn 4 years ago? 😮
This ties in It seems with the consensus from the threads today, very much of the opinion it’s looking like Starmer coming out of this set of Locals as the Leader under pressure.
Boris has backed the winner in Ukraine crisis, and will be reaping the dividends from that for some time to come, just as my Dad told me yesterday. The penny has dropped for me now. 🤦♀️
Boris is the world's most flaccid micropenis. Russia on Ukraine action was the best world event that one could possibly imagine happening for him and he still can't get it up, sorry, a lead in the polls against Starmer. He is a fat lying bastard, any Ukr credit goes to Baldy Wallace, and the Tories are going to get utterly crucified in May. Trust me on this.
Thank goodness Johnson and Sunak have a handle on the economy. Imagine if that were to run out of control.
Yeah. Sound money and low taxation innit.
Yet again I disagree with both of you. As my Dad explained why he liked the budget yesterday, it wasn’t a “populist” budget, it was fiscally literate in an inflationary situation to sit on the money for when growth is threatened and recession looming. Splashing the cash at this inflationary juncture, as a Lab Lib coalition assure us they would have done last week, would have been popular, in the short term, but would have made the medium term and longer term future for those “you were trying to help” even worse, wouldn’t it - with the money blown and inflation worse, and not the ammo to fight looming stagflation.
It wasn’t “populist” hence Boris moaning about it. splurge at this moment makes it worse in long run, if it gets to stagflation, then spend some money you have saved, as stagflation is about demand not supply so you don’t tighten to deal with it but spend.
It actually seems quite solid now the initial moaning is over.
The strongest objection to the budget was not fiscal tightness, but that such help as there was in it ignored those who are least least well off. Who are going to be those worst impacted by energy prices rises.
True.
So I appreciate what my Dad said as true at same time appreciate it still leaves opposition room to attack it. But wrong to attack it from right of centre populist position as too many of our lame stream printed media are these days. Proper Conservative press would have appreciated the fiscal literacy. Tbf as PM but with a Christian’s Against Poverty head on, it’s actually a tough call if wanting to put a fire out can make it hotter and last longer with greater help at this moment.
More than happy to be in disagreement with you on this one.
Comments
Disgraceful how this person was treated by Channel 5.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10677283/Channel-5-pays-substantial-damages-optometrist-88-shown-Pay-Away.html
The juror in question was earlier given immunity from prosecution. He had asked to be identified by his first and middle names, Scotty David.
When asked why he failed to disclose his past in the jury questionnaire when explicitly asked, he said it was an "inadvertent mistake".
"This is one of the biggest mistakes I have made in my life," he added, saying he "flew through" the document and was "super-distracted" by everything going on around him in the jury room.
On Friday, US Circuit Judge Alison Nathan said the juror had testified truthfully at a hearing in March over Maxwell's bid for a retrial.
"His failure to disclose his prior sexual abuse during the jury selection process was highly unfortunate, but not deliberate," the judge said.
As with many other issues in Britain, the outline of an answer is there (in this case, Devomax with a thistle on top, and opt-out Devo for parts of England that want it. Me, I'd go for the original ITV areas, so we can have a regional government covering Midlands weekdays and London weekends.) But warriors on both sides prevent a broadly acceptable answer being fleshed out.
Just to be clear I am not a Ghislaine fanboi, but here's a miscarriage of justice. Right here.
Bye Will
I think most of us still expect the tide to turn at some point, but what if it doesn’t? What if Ukraine takes back territory in Donbas and is welcomed by the population? They’ve had a pretty ugly 8 years since 2014 after all.
The idea that Russia has loads of really great tanks that it just chose not to use in the invasion is for the birds.
With all these matters, showing there was some kind of irregularity isn't enough so secure an acquittal or retrail. You need to show it makes the verdict unsafe.
https://twitter.com/worldonalert/status/1510039148299751424
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1510050833630732291
Ukrainian actor Alexei Surovtsev went under fire to Irpin (Kyiv Oblast) to save pets. We share with you a video of his brave acts
The video really brings home the utter devastation of the suburbs.
Lots of looting of homes too. This destroyed truck was carrying stolen washing machines.
https://twitter.com/YARBONDARENKO/status/1510013188468842503?t=h82ADYZC1WQxogfuqpaW_Q&s=19
(And the new one has a brilliant photo......)
So I appreciate what my Dad said as true at same time appreciate it still leaves opposition room to attack it. But wrong to attack it from right of centre populist position as too many of our lame stream printed media are these days. Proper Conservative press would have appreciated the fiscal literacy.
Tbf as PM but with a Christian’s Against Poverty head on, it’s actually a tough call if wanting to put a fire out can make it hotter and last longer with greater help at this moment.
More than happy to be in disagreement with you on this one.