Howdy, Stranger!

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

A UK recession in 2022? – politicalbetting.com

1356

Comments

  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,334
    kle4 said:

    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Looking forward to Ncuti Gatwa as the next Doctor.

    Contrary to some of the prickly old gammons on here, I've enjoyed almost all the Jodie Whittaker stories - just as I did Capaldi, Smith, Tennant, Eccleston et al. It's enjoyable escapist nonsense - not to be taken too seriously.

    I know some of the earlier Jodie stories irritated the anti-woke mob but I thought they told perfectly good stories but let's be honest, a good morality tale with "good" triumphing over "evil" is all most people want - after all, it's what Bond films are as well.

    Looking forward to the specials and the regeneration - let's hope we can get some of the old Doctors back (a good multi-Doctor humdinger with a few Daleks, Cybermen, the Master and a tearful send off for a companion or two).

    State of this ?

    Not liking the Whittaker era is analogous to being a prickly old gammon.

    You should be on gallifreybase 😂😂😂😂
    I have no issues with Jodie or the Doctor being a woman. The writing is crap, the show runner is a joke of a man and was useless from day one.

    It's been crap ever since RTD left. I don't agree that Moffat was any good, he was hopeless!
    I stopped watching before he took over, but certainly he had written some very good episodes. Good writer, bad showrunner?
    Spot on.
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 332

    If this isn't the place where someone might be able to help me, I'd be shocked.

    I have some software I use to support my teaching. It got given to me when I started as an .exe file, a .dat file (which I can open, read, edit and contains model data that the .exe file reads), three .dll files and four .bpl files (both sets can be opened in notepad but are gibberish).

    Is there any way I can get into the original programme script given this?

    If you're very lucky and it was written in a .net family languange, the JetBrains have a nice free tool : https://www.jetbrains.com/decompiler/ - might be worth a quick shot anyway just to see if it works.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,694
    20 degrees in my garden. In the Lakes. In May. Bliss.

    Has the entire British political establishment resigned yet over the Covid rules?

    No.

    Ah well, back to the garden.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796
    IshmaelZ said:

    Goodness, there're lots of doom- and fear-mongers on here today.

    Here's a link that explains why it is unlikely that Russia will use nukes over Ukraine.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4

    Taking the concept of the low-effort post to a whole new level. The world's dreariest Australian says we'll be fine because modern nuclear doctrine says no.
    Thanks for your contribution. It was appreciated.
  • NorthofStokeNorthofStoke Posts: 1,694

    Taz said:

    Isn't the problem with Doctor Who now that in the world where we expect (and get) movie level VFX for sci-fi and fantasy tv shows, Doctor Who looks hugely dated and rather amateur hour. That was also the criticism with that around the world reboot, it was filmed on the cheap in a street in Romania, trying to claim to be loads of different exotic countries.

    Doctor Who has never had the most up to date special effects at any point in its history. When its being popular (60's, 70s, late 2000's-early 2010's) it's been because it had good storylines and a likeable Doctor + companions.
    When RTD left it went to shit
    Nah, the Matt Smith/early Moffat era did perfectly well amongst general audiences and is liked by fans. The show only started going downhill around 2015 when it was clear Moffat couldn't be bothered anymore.
    There's a funny review of Sherlock online, saying why it's such a terrible show and firmly blaming Moffat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM

    And it was a *terrible* show.
    The pilot was not too bad but, yes, it was awful. All very smug and self congratulatory.

    Glad to see Una Stubbs keeping the coffee table clean though.
    ;)

    We bought the DVD of the Sherlock first series and the pilot episode was really good. But they totally slaughtered it for the released first episode - a point I'm glad the guy in the link above made.

    Elementary is a far superior modern recharacterisation of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
    Much of the writing in Sherlock makes absolutely no sense at all but they paper over the cracks of that by arguing it's "clever".
    The longer it's been, the worse that show looks. Literally the only good episode is the first
    I agree. At first I thought I had gone mad because it seemed popular and got good reviews while I regarded it as appalling drivel. Dr. Who similar when I've dipped in but TBF not seen enough to comment properly.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449

    IshmaelZ said:

    Goodness, there're lots of doom- and fear-mongers on here today.

    Here's a link that explains why it is unlikely that Russia will use nukes over Ukraine.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4

    Taking the concept of the low-effort post to a whole new level. The world's dreariest Australian says we'll be fine because modern nuclear doctrine says no.
    Thanks for your contribution. It was appreciated.
    Yes well, one of us went to the trouble of summarising the video, and it wasn't you.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,694
    Cyclefree said:

    20 degrees in my garden. In the Lakes. In May. Bliss.

    Has the entire British political establishment resigned yet over the Covid rules?

    No.

    Ah well, back to the garden.

    Also, while it is nice of @ydoethur to offer me the PB Home Secretaryship, I think I'd rather be PM. 😌
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294

    If this isn't the place where someone might be able to help me, I'd be shocked.

    I have some software I use to support my teaching. It got given to me when I started as an .exe file, a .dat file (which I can open, read, edit and contains model data that the .exe file reads), three .dll files and four .bpl files (both sets can be opened in notepad but are gibberish).

    Is there any way I can get into the original programme script given this?

    Exe should open if you double click it.

    DLLs are compiled code so they will be unreadable by you.
    Exe runs the actual program, which plots model data and allows students to interpret 'realistically'. Model data is generated in the .dat file - and editing that does have an effect.
    If you know which programming language the software was written, and the name of the program used to compile the code, you can probably find a way to decompile it.

    If it’s not an expensive commercial piece of software, there’s likely no encryption in the program, in the same way there’s no encryption of the .dat database.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,372
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    20 degrees in my garden. In the Lakes. In May. Bliss.

    Has the entire British political establishment resigned yet over the Covid rules?

    No.

    Ah well, back to the garden.

    Also, while it is nice of @ydoethur to offer me the PB Home Secretaryship, I think I'd rather be PM. 😌
    Classic move to shunt off rivals to difficult areas, I think you need to take him down.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,228

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    2 gains for the Conservatives in New Addington South, so far. Labour have, in effect, lost control of the Council already, as they have insufficient votes to block the Mayor. The Conservatives need to gain 3 more to take control,
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
  • felixfelix Posts: 14,261
    Sean_F said:

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    2 gains for the Conservatives in New Addington South, so far. Labour have, in effect, lost control of the Council already, as they have insufficient votes to block the Mayor. The Conservatives need to gain 3 more to take control,
    That's another odd one - what's the story there?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,105

    Taz said:

    Isn't the problem with Doctor Who now that in the world where we expect (and get) movie level VFX for sci-fi and fantasy tv shows, Doctor Who looks hugely dated and rather amateur hour. That was also the criticism with that around the world reboot, it was filmed on the cheap in a street in Romania, trying to claim to be loads of different exotic countries.

    Doctor Who has never had the most up to date special effects at any point in its history. When its being popular (60's, 70s, late 2000's-early 2010's) it's been because it had good storylines and a likeable Doctor + companions.
    When RTD left it went to shit
    Nah, the Matt Smith/early Moffat era did perfectly well amongst general audiences and is liked by fans. The show only started going downhill around 2015 when it was clear Moffat couldn't be bothered anymore.
    There's a funny review of Sherlock online, saying why it's such a terrible show and firmly blaming Moffat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM

    And it was a *terrible* show.
    The pilot was not too bad but, yes, it was awful. All very smug and self congratulatory.

    Glad to see Una Stubbs keeping the coffee table clean though.
    ;)

    We bought the DVD of the Sherlock first series and the pilot episode was really good. But they totally slaughtered it for the released first episode - a point I'm glad the guy in the link above made.

    Elementary is a far superior modern recharacterisation of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
    Much of the writing in Sherlock makes absolutely no sense at all but they paper over the cracks of that by arguing it's "clever".
    Well I'm glad you said that. We have to stop a lot of dramas these days to have a discussion about wtf is going on. I thought I was just getting old.

    I demand that actors go around with name tags on to make life easier for me.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,105
    kle4 said:

    President Biden repeated a story about an encounter with an Amtrak conductor friend for the seventh time

    Biden, 79, was speaking at the launch of the Additive Manufacturing Forward initiative in Ohio with Senators Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman when he recalled the encounter with rail worker Angelo Negri.

    He appears to shift the date of the meeting from his last retelling, where he claimed it happened in 2015, to before the death of his mother in January 2010, when he was Vice President.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10793245/Biden-repeats-false-story-encounter-Amtrak-conductor-SEVENTH-time.html

    Old person/politician tells same story repeatedly.

    Does that class as news nowadays? My granddad has a few stories he loves to tell. The general gist of the story stay the same, but a few facts change in each retelling.
    I do that. I'm usually somewhat more of a hero, or intellectual giant, each time.
    Clearly it is becoming more accurate with time.
    Excellent sucking up there.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 31,228
    felix said:

    Sean_F said:

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    2 gains for the Conservatives in New Addington South, so far. Labour have, in effect, lost control of the Council already, as they have insufficient votes to block the Mayor. The Conservatives need to gain 3 more to take control,
    That's another odd one - what's the story there?
    I've heard the Council has been very poorly run, The Conservatives have gained 1 more in New Addington North, and the Lib Dems in Crystal Palace. Also, talk of 1 or 2 Green gains from Labour.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796
    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Isn't the problem with Doctor Who now that in the world where we expect (and get) movie level VFX for sci-fi and fantasy tv shows, Doctor Who looks hugely dated and rather amateur hour. That was also the criticism with that around the world reboot, it was filmed on the cheap in a street in Romania, trying to claim to be loads of different exotic countries.

    Doctor Who has never had the most up to date special effects at any point in its history. When its being popular (60's, 70s, late 2000's-early 2010's) it's been because it had good storylines and a likeable Doctor + companions.
    When RTD left it went to shit
    Nah, the Matt Smith/early Moffat era did perfectly well amongst general audiences and is liked by fans. The show only started going downhill around 2015 when it was clear Moffat couldn't be bothered anymore.
    There's a funny review of Sherlock online, saying why it's such a terrible show and firmly blaming Moffat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM

    And it was a *terrible* show.
    The pilot was not too bad but, yes, it was awful. All very smug and self congratulatory.

    Glad to see Una Stubbs keeping the coffee table clean though.
    ;)

    We bought the DVD of the Sherlock first series and the pilot episode was really good. But they totally slaughtered it for the released first episode - a point I'm glad the guy in the link above made.

    Elementary is a far superior modern recharacterisation of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
    Much of the writing in Sherlock makes absolutely no sense at all but they paper over the cracks of that by arguing it's "clever".
    The longer it's been, the worse that show looks. Literally the only good episode is the first
    Yes, it’s fucking terrible. One good episode then a ton of self-congratulatory shite

    “Quality” British tv drama at its worst
    I remember having a discussion with you about this when it first came out. Well, it wasn't Leon, but you know what I mean. ;)

    You said how good it was, and how I was utterly and totally wrong for saying it was bad, and pointed to the rave reviews it got from the Sherlock Holmes Appreciation Society or somesuch...
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 1,911
    Sean_F said:

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    2 gains for the Conservatives in New Addington South, so far. Labour have, in effect, lost control of the Council already, as they have insufficient votes to block the Mayor. The Conservatives need to gain 3 more to take control,
    How are they still counting? Is the whole thing being done by two chimps and an intern?
  • kjhkjh Posts: 7,105
    rcs1000 said:

    President Biden repeated a story about an encounter with an Amtrak conductor friend for the seventh time

    Biden, 79, was speaking at the launch of the Additive Manufacturing Forward initiative in Ohio with Senators Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman when he recalled the encounter with rail worker Angelo Negri.

    He appears to shift the date of the meeting from his last retelling, where he claimed it happened in 2015, to before the death of his mother in January 2010, when he was Vice President.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10793245/Biden-repeats-false-story-encounter-Amtrak-conductor-SEVENTH-time.html

    Old person/politician tells same story repeatedly.

    Does that class as news nowadays? My granddad has a few stories he loves to tell. The general gist of the story stay the same, but a few facts change in each retelling.
    Bill Clinton, when he met a voter, would ask were they were from. Wherever they said he'd express excitement, and say that he knew sometime from there, and they were a friend. He'd then launch into an anecdote about said person.

    He only had about two dozen anecdotes, and would just repeat them.

    I don't think this is very different.
    Simon Hughes always had some sort of connection with the place he was visiting and come out with a story. He must of visited everywhere in the UK, or maybe not.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 101,106
    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Yet on the latest polls and last week's NEV from the local elections Starmer would indeed become PM, albeit he would need the Liberal Democrats at least to prop him up in a hung parliament
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    edited May 8
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Goodness, there're lots of doom- and fear-mongers on here today.

    Here's a link that explains why it is unlikely that Russia will use nukes over Ukraine.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4

    Taking the concept of the low-effort post to a whole new level. The world's dreariest Australian says we'll be fine because modern nuclear doctrine says no.
    Thanks for your contribution. It was appreciated.
    Yes well, one of us went to the trouble of summarising the video, and it wasn't you.
    Like that article you kept on linking to that had very little substance to it, except 'ohmigodohmigodohmigod!' ?

    Besides, the video says much more than that. It's well worth a watch IMO.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,025

    Omnium said:

    So...

    Streeting, Reeves, (Abbott as a proxy for someone on the left - Corbyn?), Nandy. Any more? Interesting that Rayner hasn't featured.

    Burnham has presumably blown it again!

    Raynor goes if Starmer goes.

    Proxy Corbyn will Burgon surely?
    I'm slightly doubtful about Burgon still being thought of as a possibility even by the left. I think more likely someone like Louise Haigh.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 1,911
    kjh said:

    rcs1000 said:

    President Biden repeated a story about an encounter with an Amtrak conductor friend for the seventh time

    Biden, 79, was speaking at the launch of the Additive Manufacturing Forward initiative in Ohio with Senators Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman when he recalled the encounter with rail worker Angelo Negri.

    He appears to shift the date of the meeting from his last retelling, where he claimed it happened in 2015, to before the death of his mother in January 2010, when he was Vice President.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10793245/Biden-repeats-false-story-encounter-Amtrak-conductor-SEVENTH-time.html

    Old person/politician tells same story repeatedly.

    Does that class as news nowadays? My granddad has a few stories he loves to tell. The general gist of the story stay the same, but a few facts change in each retelling.
    Bill Clinton, when he met a voter, would ask were they were from. Wherever they said he'd express excitement, and say that he knew sometime from there, and they were a friend. He'd then launch into an anecdote about said person.

    He only had about two dozen anecdotes, and would just repeat them.

    I don't think this is very different.
    Simon Hughes always had some sort of connection with the place he was visiting and come out with a story. He must of visited everywhere in the UK, or maybe not.
    This is where mass media, and 24 hour news really hits politicians isn’t it? It’s like the death of the stump speech at elections - you have to be a bit more varied now because you have to get on the news.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,829
    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    Not seen that re second sleeps. Any links please?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    felix said:

    Sean_F said:

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    2 gains for the Conservatives in New Addington South, so far. Labour have, in effect, lost control of the Council already, as they have insufficient votes to block the Mayor. The Conservatives need to gain 3 more to take control,
    That's another odd one - what's the story there?
    This headline pretty much sums it up: "Croydon Council could be forced to declare bankruptcy again"

    https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/19967418.croydon-council-forced-declare-bankruptcy/
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Isn't the problem with Doctor Who now that in the world where we expect (and get) movie level VFX for sci-fi and fantasy tv shows, Doctor Who looks hugely dated and rather amateur hour. That was also the criticism with that around the world reboot, it was filmed on the cheap in a street in Romania, trying to claim to be loads of different exotic countries.

    Doctor Who has never had the most up to date special effects at any point in its history. When its being popular (60's, 70s, late 2000's-early 2010's) it's been because it had good storylines and a likeable Doctor + companions.
    When RTD left it went to shit
    Nah, the Matt Smith/early Moffat era did perfectly well amongst general audiences and is liked by fans. The show only started going downhill around 2015 when it was clear Moffat couldn't be bothered anymore.
    There's a funny review of Sherlock online, saying why it's such a terrible show and firmly blaming Moffat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM

    And it was a *terrible* show.
    The pilot was not too bad but, yes, it was awful. All very smug and self congratulatory.

    Glad to see Una Stubbs keeping the coffee table clean though.
    ;)

    We bought the DVD of the Sherlock first series and the pilot episode was really good. But they totally slaughtered it for the released first episode - a point I'm glad the guy in the link above made.

    Elementary is a far superior modern recharacterisation of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
    Much of the writing in Sherlock makes absolutely no sense at all but they paper over the cracks of that by arguing it's "clever".
    The longer it's been, the worse that show looks. Literally the only good episode is the first
    Yes, it’s fucking terrible. One good episode then a ton of self-congratulatory shite

    “Quality” British tv drama at its worst
    I remember having a discussion with you about this when it first came out. Well, it wasn't Leon, but you know what I mean. ;)

    You said how good it was, and how I was utterly and totally wrong for saying it was bad, and pointed to the rave reviews it got from the Sherlock Holmes Appreciation Society or somesuch...
    I REALLY don’t think that is true. I never liked it, ever, apart from that one opening episode (which was excellent)

    Like many on here I was bemused by the rave reviews from episode 2 onwards. Indeed I noted that it got praised by all the usual Woke lefty suspects, people like Caitlin Moran, and anyone on the Guardian, who latched on to it as evidence of how brilliant tthe BBC is - and so Sherlock is superb and must not be criticised

    Laughable. Sherlock isn’t the only example of this syndrome, either
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,691
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    So...

    Streeting, Reeves, (Abbott as a proxy for someone on the left - Corbyn?), Nandy. Any more? Interesting that Rayner hasn't featured.

    Burnham has presumably blown it again!

    Raynor goes if Starmer goes.

    Proxy Corbyn will Burgon surely?
    I'm slightly doubtful about Burgon still being thought of as a possibility even by the left. I think more likely someone like Louise Haigh.
    Looks like peeps on twitter are pointing out the Left need 39 signatures for nominee. Not going to get that unless it is on the softer end of the left - not just SCG.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294
    biggles said:

    Sean_F said:

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    2 gains for the Conservatives in New Addington South, so far. Labour have, in effect, lost control of the Council already, as they have insufficient votes to block the Mayor. The Conservatives need to gain 3 more to take control,
    How are they still counting? Is the whole thing being done by two chimps and an intern?
    They didn’t start counting until last night - because the hall they usually use had gone bust, because the council messed up its management! They had to use a school hall, so had to wait for the school to close.
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,427
    edited May 8

    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Looking forward to Ncuti Gatwa as the next Doctor.

    Contrary to some of the prickly old gammons on here, I've enjoyed almost all the Jodie Whittaker stories - just as I did Capaldi, Smith, Tennant, Eccleston et al. It's enjoyable escapist nonsense - not to be taken too seriously.

    I know some of the earlier Jodie stories irritated the anti-woke mob but I thought they told perfectly good stories but let's be honest, a good morality tale with "good" triumphing over "evil" is all most people want - after all, it's what Bond films are as well.

    Looking forward to the specials and the regeneration - let's hope we can get some of the old Doctors back (a good multi-Doctor humdinger with a few Daleks, Cybermen, the Master and a tearful send off for a companion or two).

    State of this ?

    Not liking the Whittaker era is analogous to being a prickly old gammon.

    You should be on gallifreybase 😂😂😂😂
    I like Kerblam, where she takes the side of the multi-galaxy corporation.

    Or that one where she's literally complicit in letting an innocent man die.

    Or that one where you can't shoot giant spiders but you can let them choke to death.

    Her actual in-show politics are an absolute mess.

    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Looking forward to Ncuti Gatwa as the next Doctor.

    Contrary to some of the prickly old gammons on here, I've enjoyed almost all the Jodie Whittaker stories - just as I did Capaldi, Smith, Tennant, Eccleston et al. It's enjoyable escapist nonsense - not to be taken too seriously.

    I know some of the earlier Jodie stories irritated the anti-woke mob but I thought they told perfectly good stories but let's be honest, a good morality tale with "good" triumphing over "evil" is all most people want - after all, it's what Bond films are as well.

    Looking forward to the specials and the regeneration - let's hope we can get some of the old Doctors back (a good multi-Doctor humdinger with a few Daleks, Cybermen, the Master and a tearful send off for a companion or two).

    State of this ?

    Not liking the Whittaker era is analogous to being a prickly old gammon.

    You should be on gallifreybase 😂😂😂😂
    I like Kerblam, where she takes the side of the multi-galaxy corporation.

    Or that one where she's literally complicit in letting an innocent man die.

    Or that one where you can't shoot giant spiders but you can let them choke to death.

    Her actual in-show politics are an absolute mess.
    Yes, all over the place. Problem, possibly, with the show runner writing the majority of the episodes as well. Some come over as first drafts.

    Kerblam - Amazon are good.

    There was the nonsense with the frog which immediately put me in mind of Psychomania.

    I thought Rosa was pretty good in spite of the intergalactic tommy Robinson, I also liked Sachs Dhawan as the master. The whole timeless child thing was a mess. Flux was hit and Miss. it’s just an opportunity missed. I’m glad it’s all coming to an end.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 1,911
    edited May 8
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    So...

    Streeting, Reeves, (Abbott as a proxy for someone on the left - Corbyn?), Nandy. Any more? Interesting that Rayner hasn't featured.

    Burnham has presumably blown it again!

    Raynor goes if Starmer goes.

    Proxy Corbyn will Burgon surely?
    I'm slightly doubtful about Burgon still being thought of as a possibility even by the left. I think more likely someone like Louise Haigh.
    In the PLP nomination stage at least, they presumably need to now focus on being kingmakers and getting someone friendly on the ballot they can get behind within the membership.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Isn't the problem with Doctor Who now that in the world where we expect (and get) movie level VFX for sci-fi and fantasy tv shows, Doctor Who looks hugely dated and rather amateur hour. That was also the criticism with that around the world reboot, it was filmed on the cheap in a street in Romania, trying to claim to be loads of different exotic countries.

    Doctor Who has never had the most up to date special effects at any point in its history. When its being popular (60's, 70s, late 2000's-early 2010's) it's been because it had good storylines and a likeable Doctor + companions.
    When RTD left it went to shit
    Nah, the Matt Smith/early Moffat era did perfectly well amongst general audiences and is liked by fans. The show only started going downhill around 2015 when it was clear Moffat couldn't be bothered anymore.
    There's a funny review of Sherlock online, saying why it's such a terrible show and firmly blaming Moffat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM

    And it was a *terrible* show.
    The pilot was not too bad but, yes, it was awful. All very smug and self congratulatory.

    Glad to see Una Stubbs keeping the coffee table clean though.
    ;)

    We bought the DVD of the Sherlock first series and the pilot episode was really good. But they totally slaughtered it for the released first episode - a point I'm glad the guy in the link above made.

    Elementary is a far superior modern recharacterisation of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
    Much of the writing in Sherlock makes absolutely no sense at all but they paper over the cracks of that by arguing it's "clever".
    The longer it's been, the worse that show looks. Literally the only good episode is the first
    Yes, it’s fucking terrible. One good episode then a ton of self-congratulatory shite

    “Quality” British tv drama at its worst
    I remember having a discussion with you about this when it first came out. Well, it wasn't Leon, but you know what I mean. ;)

    You said how good it was, and how I was utterly and totally wrong for saying it was bad, and pointed to the rave reviews it got from the Sherlock Holmes Appreciation Society or somesuch...
    I REALLY don’t think that is true. I never liked it, ever, apart from that one opening episode (which was excellent)

    Like many on here I was bemused by the rave reviews from episode 2 onwards. Indeed I noted that it got praised by all the usual Woke lefty suspects, people like Caitlin Moran, and anyone on the Guardian, who latched on to it as evidence of how brilliant tthe BBC is - and so Sherlock is superb and must not be criticised

    Laughable. Sherlock isn’t the only example of this syndrome, either
    I don't think I'm wrong, but it was a long time ago...

    I remember it because you usually know your stuff on storywriting, for some odd reason. ;)
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,128
    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    Life comes at you fast
  • stodgestodge Posts: 10,516
    Sean_F said:

    felix said:

    Sean_F said:

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    2 gains for the Conservatives in New Addington South, so far. Labour have, in effect, lost control of the Council already, as they have insufficient votes to block the Mayor. The Conservatives need to gain 3 more to take control,
    That's another odd one - what's the story there?
    I've heard the Council has been very poorly run, The Conservatives have gained 1 more in New Addington North, and the Lib Dems in Crystal Palace. Also, talk of 1 or 2 Green gains from Labour.
    The Council declared Section 106 bankruptcy mainly (as I recall) due to some issues with its property investment arm. It used to be a solidly Conservative Borough until the 1990s and was effectively polarised between a Labour voting north and a Conservative voting south.

    It's now, as elsewhere, becoming more nuanced and after a long period of duopoly domination it would be good to see some LD and Green representation.

    There's not much experience of a Mayor from one party and a Council controlled by another - Hartlepool? I don't know the extent of the powers of the two and how such co-habitation (to borrow the French expression) works.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,119

    Isn't the problem with Doctor Who now that in the world where we expect (and get) movie level VFX for sci-fi and fantasy tv shows, Doctor Who looks hugely dated and rather amateur hour. That was also the criticism with that around the world reboot, it was filmed on the cheap in a street in Romania, trying to claim to be loads of different exotic countries.

    Doctor Who has never had the most up to date special effects at any point in its history. When its being popular (60's, 70s, late 2000's-early 2010's) it's been because it had good storylines and a likeable Doctor + companions.
    When RTD left it went to shit
    Nah, the Matt Smith/early Moffat era did perfectly well amongst general audiences and is liked by fans. The show only started going downhill around 2015 when it was clear Moffat couldn't be bothered anymore.
    There's a funny review of Sherlock online, saying why it's such a terrible show and firmly blaming Moffat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM

    And it was a *terrible* show.
    It was full of lame devices such as “all the wackiness is because serial killer”

    Sherlock Holmes without the deduction of the rational scheme of an opponent isn’t Sherlock Holmes.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    Not seen that re second sleeps. Any links please?
    The debunking?
  • TazTaz Posts: 5,427

    Taz said:

    stodge said:

    Looking forward to Ncuti Gatwa as the next Doctor.

    Contrary to some of the prickly old gammons on here, I've enjoyed almost all the Jodie Whittaker stories - just as I did Capaldi, Smith, Tennant, Eccleston et al. It's enjoyable escapist nonsense - not to be taken too seriously.

    I know some of the earlier Jodie stories irritated the anti-woke mob but I thought they told perfectly good stories but let's be honest, a good morality tale with "good" triumphing over "evil" is all most people want - after all, it's what Bond films are as well.

    Looking forward to the specials and the regeneration - let's hope we can get some of the old Doctors back (a good multi-Doctor humdinger with a few Daleks, Cybermen, the Master and a tearful send off for a companion or two).

    State of this ?

    Not liking the Whittaker era is analogous to being a prickly old gammon.

    You should be on gallifreybase 😂😂😂😂
    I have no issues with Jodie or the Doctor being a woman. The writing is crap, the show runner is a joke of a man and was useless from day one.

    It's been crap ever since RTD left. I don't agree that Moffat was any good, he was hopeless!
    As a writer he was good, as a show runner he was lacking and his focus was not on Dr Who but also Sherlock. He should have left when Smith did.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,372
    edited May 8
    kjh said:

    kle4 said:

    President Biden repeated a story about an encounter with an Amtrak conductor friend for the seventh time

    Biden, 79, was speaking at the launch of the Additive Manufacturing Forward initiative in Ohio with Senators Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman when he recalled the encounter with rail worker Angelo Negri.

    He appears to shift the date of the meeting from his last retelling, where he claimed it happened in 2015, to before the death of his mother in January 2010, when he was Vice President.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10793245/Biden-repeats-false-story-encounter-Amtrak-conductor-SEVENTH-time.html

    Old person/politician tells same story repeatedly.

    Does that class as news nowadays? My granddad has a few stories he loves to tell. The general gist of the story stay the same, but a few facts change in each retelling.
    I do that. I'm usually somewhat more of a hero, or intellectual giant, each time.
    Clearly it is becoming more accurate with time.
    Excellent sucking up there.
    I have to practice for work skills.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,128
    MattW said:

    Afternoon all.

    Can anyone recommend a decent source for a simple investment agreement - smallish investment in exchange for a minority share of a new business, with an aligned share of profits?

    Is this an "ask your accountant" one?

    Thanks.

    Lawyer. Should have a share purchase agreement. Focus on governance, minority protections and liquidity rights
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 1,911
    edited May 8
    Sandpit said:

    biggles said:

    Sean_F said:

    any news of Croydon and its result?

    2 gains for the Conservatives in New Addington South, so far. Labour have, in effect, lost control of the Council already, as they have insufficient votes to block the Mayor. The Conservatives need to gain 3 more to take control,
    How are they still counting? Is the whole thing being done by two chimps and an intern?
    They didn’t start counting until last night - because the hall they usually use had gone bust, because the council messed up its management! They had to use a school hall, so had to wait for the school to close.
    Thanks. Christ…. Says it all. Odds on to retake the parliamentary seat too, even against the grain?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Goodness, there're lots of doom- and fear-mongers on here today.

    Here's a link that explains why it is unlikely that Russia will use nukes over Ukraine.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4

    Taking the concept of the low-effort post to a whole new level. The world's dreariest Australian says we'll be fine because modern nuclear doctrine says no.
    Thanks for your contribution. It was appreciated.
    Yes well, one of us went to the trouble of summarising the video, and it wasn't you.
    Like that article you kept on linking to that had very little substance to it, except 'ohmigodohmigodohmigod!' ?

    Besides, the video says much more than that. It's well worth a watch IMO.
    The one with a list of named, authoritative, primary sources longer than your arm? And a named author come to think of it, whereas we don't get much of a steer as to who the fck Skippy the Wonder Thinker actually is.

    And if you think that's what it says your comprehension skills are in worse trouble than I thought.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,811

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    Not seen that re second sleeps. Any links please?
    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220107-the-lost-medieval-habit-of-biphasic-sleep
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,103
    I stopped watching Dr Who after Chris Ecclestone left.

    Is it still going?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,119
    Cyclefree said:

    20 degrees in my garden. In the Lakes. In May. Bliss.

    Has the entire British political establishment resigned yet over the Covid rules?

    No.

    Ah well, back to the garden.

    I think my plan for sending the entire House of Commons (and Lords) for the first manned landing on Pluto is looking increasingly sensible.

  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,811
    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    You won't be seeing it from Camden that's for sure.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796
    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Goodness, there're lots of doom- and fear-mongers on here today.

    Here's a link that explains why it is unlikely that Russia will use nukes over Ukraine.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4

    Taking the concept of the low-effort post to a whole new level. The world's dreariest Australian says we'll be fine because modern nuclear doctrine says no.
    Thanks for your contribution. It was appreciated.
    Yes well, one of us went to the trouble of summarising the video, and it wasn't you.
    Like that article you kept on linking to that had very little substance to it, except 'ohmigodohmigodohmigod!' ?

    Besides, the video says much more than that. It's well worth a watch IMO.
    The one with a list of named, authoritative, primary sources longer than your arm? And a named author come to think of it, whereas we don't get much of a steer as to who the fck Skippy the Wonder Thinker actually is.

    And if you think that's what it says your comprehension skills are in worse trouble than I thought.
    Whatever.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 8,829
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    Not seen that re second sleeps. Any links please?
    The debunking?
    Yes. I’ve not seen the debunking, and there is lots of evidence for it in earlier centuries.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Isn't the problem with Doctor Who now that in the world where we expect (and get) movie level VFX for sci-fi and fantasy tv shows, Doctor Who looks hugely dated and rather amateur hour. That was also the criticism with that around the world reboot, it was filmed on the cheap in a street in Romania, trying to claim to be loads of different exotic countries.

    Doctor Who has never had the most up to date special effects at any point in its history. When its being popular (60's, 70s, late 2000's-early 2010's) it's been because it had good storylines and a likeable Doctor + companions.
    When RTD left it went to shit
    Nah, the Matt Smith/early Moffat era did perfectly well amongst general audiences and is liked by fans. The show only started going downhill around 2015 when it was clear Moffat couldn't be bothered anymore.
    There's a funny review of Sherlock online, saying why it's such a terrible show and firmly blaming Moffat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM

    And it was a *terrible* show.
    The pilot was not too bad but, yes, it was awful. All very smug and self congratulatory.

    Glad to see Una Stubbs keeping the coffee table clean though.
    ;)

    We bought the DVD of the Sherlock first series and the pilot episode was really good. But they totally slaughtered it for the released first episode - a point I'm glad the guy in the link above made.

    Elementary is a far superior modern recharacterisation of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
    Much of the writing in Sherlock makes absolutely no sense at all but they paper over the cracks of that by arguing it's "clever".
    The longer it's been, the worse that show looks. Literally the only good episode is the first
    Yes, it’s fucking terrible. One good episode then a ton of self-congratulatory shite

    “Quality” British tv drama at its worst
    I remember having a discussion with you about this when it first came out. Well, it wasn't Leon, but you know what I mean. ;)

    You said how good it was, and how I was utterly and totally wrong for saying it was bad, and pointed to the rave reviews it got from the Sherlock Holmes Appreciation Society or somesuch...
    I REALLY don’t think that is true. I never liked it, ever, apart from that one opening episode (which was excellent)

    Like many on here I was bemused by the rave reviews from episode 2 onwards. Indeed I noted that it got praised by all the usual Woke lefty suspects, people like Caitlin Moran, and anyone on the Guardian, who latched on to it as evidence of how brilliant tthe BBC is - and so Sherlock is superb and must not be criticised

    Laughable. Sherlock isn’t the only example of this syndrome, either
    I don't think I'm wrong, but it was a long time ago...

    I remember it because you usually know your stuff on storywriting, for some odd reason. ;)
    I’m happy to admit when I am wrong, which is often the case. I have a lot of opinions

    In this case, no

    As @Malmesbury says below, the whole point of Sherlock Holmes is his brilliant logical deductive reasoning. Without that it is over-ripe characterization, portentous acting and cheesy non sequiturs. Which describes “Sherlock”
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    Not seen that re second sleeps. Any links please?
    The debunking?
    Pretty good kicking of Ekirch at http://www.thesleepconsultancy.com/ekirch.htm
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    edited May 8
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    You won't be seeing it from Camden that's for sure.
    Why do you think I”m mysteriously in the Turkish Aegean??? For no apparent reason?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 52,691
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    You won't be seeing it from Camden that's for sure.
    Why do you think I”m mysteriously in the Turkish Aegean??? For no apparent reason?
    If there's a nuclear exchange you don't want to be one of the survivors frankly.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 22,811
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Isn't the problem with Doctor Who now that in the world where we expect (and get) movie level VFX for sci-fi and fantasy tv shows, Doctor Who looks hugely dated and rather amateur hour. That was also the criticism with that around the world reboot, it was filmed on the cheap in a street in Romania, trying to claim to be loads of different exotic countries.

    Doctor Who has never had the most up to date special effects at any point in its history. When its being popular (60's, 70s, late 2000's-early 2010's) it's been because it had good storylines and a likeable Doctor + companions.
    When RTD left it went to shit
    Nah, the Matt Smith/early Moffat era did perfectly well amongst general audiences and is liked by fans. The show only started going downhill around 2015 when it was clear Moffat couldn't be bothered anymore.
    There's a funny review of Sherlock online, saying why it's such a terrible show and firmly blaming Moffat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM

    And it was a *terrible* show.
    The pilot was not too bad but, yes, it was awful. All very smug and self congratulatory.

    Glad to see Una Stubbs keeping the coffee table clean though.
    ;)

    We bought the DVD of the Sherlock first series and the pilot episode was really good. But they totally slaughtered it for the released first episode - a point I'm glad the guy in the link above made.

    Elementary is a far superior modern recharacterisation of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
    Much of the writing in Sherlock makes absolutely no sense at all but they paper over the cracks of that by arguing it's "clever".
    The longer it's been, the worse that show looks. Literally the only good episode is the first
    Yes, it’s fucking terrible. One good episode then a ton of self-congratulatory shite

    “Quality” British tv drama at its worst
    I remember having a discussion with you about this when it first came out. Well, it wasn't Leon, but you know what I mean. ;)

    You said how good it was, and how I was utterly and totally wrong for saying it was bad, and pointed to the rave reviews it got from the Sherlock Holmes Appreciation Society or somesuch...
    I REALLY don’t think that is true. I never liked it, ever, apart from that one opening episode (which was excellent)

    Like many on here I was bemused by the rave reviews from episode 2 onwards. Indeed I noted that it got praised by all the usual Woke lefty suspects, people like Caitlin Moran, and anyone on the Guardian, who latched on to it as evidence of how brilliant tthe BBC is - and so Sherlock is superb and must not be criticised

    Laughable. Sherlock isn’t the only example of this syndrome, either
    I don't think I'm wrong, but it was a long time ago...

    I remember it because you usually know your stuff on storywriting, for some odd reason. ;)
    I’m happy to admit when I am wrong, which is often the case. I have a lot of opinions

    In this case, no

    As @Malmesbury says below, the whole point of Sherlock Holmes is his brilliant logical deductive reasoning. Without that it is over-ripe characterization, portentous acting and cheesy non sequiturs. Which describes “Sherlock”
    Come, come.
    Sherlock Holmes mainly uses inductive reasoning.
  • JonathanBarnesJonathanBarnes Posts: 70
    Huge victory for the CDU in Schleswig Holstein as predicted. SPD in 3rd place behind the Greens. Clear CDU-FDP majority.

    AfD may or may not make it back in.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 40,294

    Cyclefree said:

    20 degrees in my garden. In the Lakes. In May. Bliss.

    Has the entire British political establishment resigned yet over the Covid rules?

    No.

    Ah well, back to the garden.

    I think my plan for sending the entire House of Commons (and Lords) for the first manned landing on Pluto is looking increasingly sensible.

    I remember suggesting in 2018, at the height of the silly Parliamentary Brexit games, that the Queen should dissolve Parliament with the 650 incumbents all barred from standing again.

    A trip to Pluto is the wrong way though, a trip to Mercury or Venus would be better.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 77,372
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    Not seen that re second sleeps. Any links please?
    The debunking?
    Pretty good kicking of Ekirch at http://www.thesleepconsultancy.com/ekirch.htm
    Ekirch suggests that the modern sleep disorder, middle of the night insomnia, is actually a throwback to the predominant style of pre-industrial sleep, and is thus, in his view, entirely natural.

    I wish to present a far more plausible alternative hypothesis that I believe fully explains the evidence found in the literature and requires no unsupported assumptions to be made: ‘Segmented sleep’ can be fully explained by what Ekirch calls Middle Of The Night insomnia
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 4,821
    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    As long as it doesn't disturb your siesta, naturally.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521
    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    So...

    Streeting, Reeves, (Abbott as a proxy for someone on the left - Corbyn?), Nandy. Any more? Interesting that Rayner hasn't featured.

    Burnham has presumably blown it again!

    Raynor goes if Starmer goes.

    Proxy Corbyn will Burgon surely?
    I'm slightly doubtful about Burgon still being thought of as a possibility even by the left. I think more likely someone like Louise Haigh.
    I have a few quid on her. She has good people skills, famous work rate, rapid promotion, untainted by New Labour and in the shadow cabinet of both Corbyn and Starmer, so politically astute. Northern and Female ticks a couple of boxes too. Probably too soon for her, but one to watch.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,150

    Huge victory for the CDU in Schleswig Holstein as predicted. SPD in 3rd place behind the Greens. Clear CDU-FDP majority.

    AfD may or may not make it back in.

    Yes, the CDU moving to the right after being kicked out of power has taken the wind out of the sails of AfD and I think Merz is a good leader. If they'd put him up instead of the office administrator Laschet they'd be in power right now.

    Scholz has to hope, like Boris, that voters forget sooner rather than later and Merz self destructs the same as Starmer is currently doing.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Taz said:

    Isn't the problem with Doctor Who now that in the world where we expect (and get) movie level VFX for sci-fi and fantasy tv shows, Doctor Who looks hugely dated and rather amateur hour. That was also the criticism with that around the world reboot, it was filmed on the cheap in a street in Romania, trying to claim to be loads of different exotic countries.

    Doctor Who has never had the most up to date special effects at any point in its history. When its being popular (60's, 70s, late 2000's-early 2010's) it's been because it had good storylines and a likeable Doctor + companions.
    When RTD left it went to shit
    Nah, the Matt Smith/early Moffat era did perfectly well amongst general audiences and is liked by fans. The show only started going downhill around 2015 when it was clear Moffat couldn't be bothered anymore.
    There's a funny review of Sherlock online, saying why it's such a terrible show and firmly blaming Moffat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkoGBOs5ecM

    And it was a *terrible* show.
    The pilot was not too bad but, yes, it was awful. All very smug and self congratulatory.

    Glad to see Una Stubbs keeping the coffee table clean though.
    ;)

    We bought the DVD of the Sherlock first series and the pilot episode was really good. But they totally slaughtered it for the released first episode - a point I'm glad the guy in the link above made.

    Elementary is a far superior modern recharacterisation of the Sherlock Holmes stories.
    Much of the writing in Sherlock makes absolutely no sense at all but they paper over the cracks of that by arguing it's "clever".
    The longer it's been, the worse that show looks. Literally the only good episode is the first
    Yes, it’s fucking terrible. One good episode then a ton of self-congratulatory shite

    “Quality” British tv drama at its worst
    I remember having a discussion with you about this when it first came out. Well, it wasn't Leon, but you know what I mean. ;)

    You said how good it was, and how I was utterly and totally wrong for saying it was bad, and pointed to the rave reviews it got from the Sherlock Holmes Appreciation Society or somesuch...
    I REALLY don’t think that is true. I never liked it, ever, apart from that one opening episode (which was excellent)

    Like many on here I was bemused by the rave reviews from episode 2 onwards. Indeed I noted that it got praised by all the usual Woke lefty suspects, people like Caitlin Moran, and anyone on the Guardian, who latched on to it as evidence of how brilliant tthe BBC is - and so Sherlock is superb and must not be criticised

    Laughable. Sherlock isn’t the only example of this syndrome, either
    I don't think I'm wrong, but it was a long time ago...

    I remember it because you usually know your stuff on storywriting, for some odd reason. ;)
    I’m happy to admit when I am wrong, which is often the case. I have a lot of opinions

    In this case, no

    As @Malmesbury says below, the whole point of Sherlock Holmes is his brilliant logical deductive reasoning. Without that it is over-ripe characterization, portentous acting and cheesy non sequiturs. Which describes “Sherlock”
    Talking of shit detective stories: listened to one on r4 on the way home just now. Set in Poland, all characters Polish (and not practising their English like the "such watch" couple in Casablanca). Detective explains in the final sentence that his suspicions were aroused when he read the description of the first victim "the corpse was lying [on the ground or whatever] and this set off a sorta subconscious thought the body is lying *to us* [it turned out to be someone else in a plot twist which was stale even in Dorothy Sayers's time]. Quite apart from the lameness of this anyway, is it the case that lie on the ground/lie not tell the truth are by some massive coincidence homonyms in Polish too? And if not, surely napalming Bush House would be a proportionate response to this level of crapness?
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    I truly don't understand why so many people are convinced the next Labour leader has to be a woman. I know past performance doesn't guarantee the same in the future, but unless the MPs come up with an all-woman shortlist, I'll bet accordingly: no woman has ever finished ahead of any man in any Labour leadership election ever.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    Not seen that re second sleeps. Any links please?
    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220107-the-lost-medieval-habit-of-biphasic-sleep
    Sounds persuasive yet I don’t believe it. Why? Light

    We forget how strange it is for humans to have bright light immediately available 24/7, flooding rooms, baths, even streets, so you can do almost anything by night as you would by day

    This has only been the case for a century or two - as we developed gas then electricity

    For all human evolution, before that, artificial light was extremely rare and precious - candles were for the rich. The poor had to make do with the moon and the stars. Not enough light to do anything of importance

    So waking up for 3 hours at 2am makes no economic or social sense at all

    Also you don’t want to be out and about at that time, as night time is when most predators prowl. So it doesn’t make evolutionary sense either

    I’m calling it as bollocks

  • JonathanBarnesJonathanBarnes Posts: 70
    edited May 8
    MaxPB said:

    Huge victory for the CDU in Schleswig Holstein as predicted. SPD in 3rd place behind the Greens. Clear CDU-FDP majority.

    AfD may or may not make it back in.

    Yes, the CDU moving to the right after being kicked out of power has taken the wind out of the sails of AfD and I think Merz is a good leader. If they'd put him up instead of the office administrator Laschet they'd be in power right now.

    Scholz has to hope, like Boris, that voters forget sooner rather than later and Merz self destructs the same as Starmer is currently doing.
    I still think this is more down to local factors and a very popular CDU ministerpräsident.

    The NRW election next week will be more definitive and SPD-Green is just shy of a majority in those polls.

    SPD-Green is also still likely to happen in Lower Saxony in the autumn.

    The disappearance of die Linke in West Germany also continues apace - less than 2% here.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,702
    stodge said:

    Leon said:


    We’d need to drop at least a couple each on Moscow and St Petersburg. One each on the big Siberian cities, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, etc. Also a few on major ports: Murmansk, Vladivostok, Crimea (ironically). Then major transport and military hubs

    We’d probably have a couple of warheads “going spare” at the end to so we could also do Glasgow “accidentally” sorting out the SNP/Scottish problem, although Putin would probably have done that already, so maybe Dublin for old time’s sake. Or Lyon? Frankfurt? Buenos Aires?

    We’re kinda spoilt for choice, which is nice, and makes a refreshing change

    I don't derive a huge amount of comfort from the fact in the last minutes of my life, in ashen-faced terror, rushing round trying to build a shelter which will instantly catch fire when the bomb detonates, that the citizens of Murmansk, Irkutsk, Dublin, Glasgow, Camden, Kusadasi or indeed anywhere else will shortly follow me in death.

    Perhaps that's just me...
    It’s not just you. You are a decent human being. Sean is a turd of the first order.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    You won't be seeing it from Camden that's for sure.
    Why do you think I”m mysteriously in the Turkish Aegean??? For no apparent reason?
    That was rather a focal point of the Cuban missile crisis, no?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,119
    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    20 degrees in my garden. In the Lakes. In May. Bliss.

    Has the entire British political establishment resigned yet over the Covid rules?

    No.

    Ah well, back to the garden.

    I think my plan for sending the entire House of Commons (and Lords) for the first manned landing on Pluto is looking increasingly sensible.

    I remember suggesting in 2018, at the height of the silly Parliamentary Brexit games, that the Queen should dissolve Parliament with the 650 incumbents all barred from standing again.

    A trip to Pluto is the wrong way though, a trip to Mercury or Venus would be better.
    The Department of Education is going on the mission to land on the Sun.

    Mercury or Venus are only a light minutes away. Too close.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    Not seen that re second sleeps. Any links please?
    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220107-the-lost-medieval-habit-of-biphasic-sleep
    Sounds persuasive yet I don’t believe it. Why? Light

    We forget how strange it is for humans to have bright light immediately available 24/7, flooding rooms, baths, even streets, so you can do almost anything by night as you would by day

    This has only been the case for a century or two - as we developed gas then electricity

    For all human evolution, before that, artificial light was extremely rare and precious - candles were for the rich. The poor had to make do with the moon and the stars. Not enough light to do anything of importance

    So waking up for 3 hours at 2am makes no economic or social sense at all

    Also you don’t want to be out and about at that time, as night time is when most predators prowl. So it doesn’t make evolutionary sense either

    I’m calling it as bollocks

    And it isn't a plot point anywhere in Chaucer or Boccaccio or Shakespeare or fairy tales or any story ever told. Which you'd think it would be.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 9,702
    malcolmg said:

    Farooq said:

    malcolmg said:

    Farooq said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Farooq said:


    Yeah, I'd like to hear Malky's view on it too.
    It never ceases to strike me how effective Sturgeon is. I've said in the past that I admire her. A measure of her success is the way the Conservatives were over the moon with the 2017 results and now in 2022 Labour also very pleased at wresting 2nd place back off them. When your opponents are pleased with second, it says a lot.

    Salmond is just the latest in a long line of politicians who've tried to take her down and ended up in a crumpled heap instead. Whether you like her or not, her electoral record is astonishing.

    EDIT
    Too slow, Malky's thoughts now apparent.

    NS is a political colossus, no doubt, but her success is built on the foundation of conspicuously wanting, but not actually doing much to get, independence. While that approach has been electorally successful for a very long time it must run out of steam at some point.

    It's one of the reasons I think Johnson would be happy to offer an indyref to the SNP as the price of confidence and support. He knows NS doesn't really want one and he'd believe, with some justification, that he could win it anyway.

    The other reason he might do it is that he doesn't give a fuck about Scotland. That country being a minor subset of the many things that aren't Boris Johnson that he doesn't give a fuck about.
    I hear it so much it makes me doubt myself, but I'm still quite convinced that this is a mistaken view. I detect a real eagerness for a vote from the SNP leadership, but they've put the lid on it because of Covid. Now the locals are out of the way, we'll see whether I'm right or wrong. I expect a big move before the summer is out. If we get to September and it's all tumbleweed, you're right and I'm wrong.

    EDIT: rethinking slightly, by the end of the conference, when is that, October?
    would you like a wager on it
    No thanks
    @Farooq
    We can just have "a told you so " then.
    If only the bookies got off that lightly.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 4,511

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


    We’d need to drop at least a couple each on Moscow and St Petersburg. One each on the big Siberian cities, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, etc. Also a few on major ports: Murmansk, Vladivostok, Crimea (ironically). Then major transport and military hubs

    We’d probably have a couple of warheads “going spare” at the end to so we could also do Glasgow “accidentally” sorting out the SNP/Scottish problem, although Putin would probably have done that already, so maybe Dublin for old time’s sake. Or Lyon? Frankfurt? Buenos Aires?

    We’re kinda spoilt for choice, which is nice, and makes a refreshing change

    I don't derive a huge amount of comfort from the fact in the last minutes of my life, in ashen-faced terror, rushing round trying to build a shelter which will instantly catch fire when the bomb detonates, that the citizens of Murmansk, Irkutsk, Dublin, Glasgow, Camden, Kusadasi or indeed anywhere else will shortly follow me in death.

    Perhaps that's just me...
    It’s not just you. You are a decent human being. Sean is a turd of the first order.
    Sean has at least switched to general fantasies of violent death rather than fantasies specific to certain religious groups.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250

    stodge said:

    Leon said:


    We’d need to drop at least a couple each on Moscow and St Petersburg. One each on the big Siberian cities, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, etc. Also a few on major ports: Murmansk, Vladivostok, Crimea (ironically). Then major transport and military hubs

    We’d probably have a couple of warheads “going spare” at the end to so we could also do Glasgow “accidentally” sorting out the SNP/Scottish problem, although Putin would probably have done that already, so maybe Dublin for old time’s sake. Or Lyon? Frankfurt? Buenos Aires?

    We’re kinda spoilt for choice, which is nice, and makes a refreshing change

    I don't derive a huge amount of comfort from the fact in the last minutes of my life, in ashen-faced terror, rushing round trying to build a shelter which will instantly catch fire when the bomb detonates, that the citizens of Murmansk, Irkutsk, Dublin, Glasgow, Camden, Kusadasi or indeed anywhere else will shortly follow me in death.

    Perhaps that's just me...
    It’s not just you. You are a decent human being. Sean is a turd of the first order.
    You really hate this “Sean” character. He doesn’t sound very nice AT ALL. Ugh!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,040
    Belatedly, owing to having driven to Slovenia for lunch, the Sunday Rawnsley:

    It is not just in their intellectual exhaustion that the Tories are exhibiting the morbid symptoms of a fin-de-siècle regime. Following the tawdry example set from the very top, they are enveloped in the sleaze that often characterises parties that have been squatting on power for too long.

    How parties react to election outcomes can be as illuminating as the results themselves. It is some encouragement for Labour that the shadow cabinet understands and acknowledges that their party still has far to go. Euphoric Liberal Democrats reaped the most gains on the night, but Sir Ed Davey’s jubilation is tempered by the knowledge that it is a demanding task to translate local election successes into more seats at Westminster. The Greens, the SNP and Sinn Féin all have reason to be cheerful.

    The Tories are responding to heavy losses with a mixture of fear and complacency. Fear among those MPs anxious that the formula that delivered victory in 2019 is disintegrating. Complacency among those who reckon these elections don’t mean much.

    So when Conservative MPs look at the voter coalition that gave them power in 2019, many see cause to sweat that it is starting to unravel. “People used to think that only Boris could keep it together,” says one senior Tory. “The danger now is we lose both ends of the coalition because of him.”
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Every day I wake up, here in Kusadasi, around 10am or so


    I do a few hours work, in the coffee bar; then I lie in the sun, have a swim, maybe a beer or a Raki. After that I come back to my room and without fail I fall asleep for about an hour. I can’t work out why. My jet lag has gone. I’m getting plenty of sleep at night. My swim isn’t THAT energetic, and I don’t drink more than two rakis or beers

    Yet off I go. Into a siesta. I wonder if it is the sound of the sea right outside. The soothing crumple of the waves, Or maybe because everything is super stress-free, so my whole metabolism has slowed down. It’s unexpected. Also rather nice, because I wake feeling deeply refreshed

    Perhaps the human body is meant to sleep for an hour in the afternoon, and the Spanish were right all along?

    Well people apparently used to wake in the night to read, do some chores and have sex, before going back to bed, so if we were not built to sleep a solid 8 hours at night, why not siesta?

    I'm certainly always more sluggish in the early afternoon and more active in the evening.
    I believe ‘the second sleep’ has recently been debunked

    It has occurred to me that my stress-free siesta habit is the first sign of old age, if so old age might not be so bad. You’re very chilled and you sleep a lot. Dunno why my mum moans so much. Who needs a spleen anyway?

    But it doesn’t feel like old age. It feels like: if you take away all the anxieties of daily life, the choices and business and social drama, then you go into a lovely unstressed zone where your body says OK, sleepy time, why not, mmm - like a cat. Cats are always sleeping and they’re cool
    Not seen that re second sleeps. Any links please?
    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220107-the-lost-medieval-habit-of-biphasic-sleep
    Sounds persuasive yet I don’t believe it. Why? Light

    We forget how strange it is for humans to have bright light immediately available 24/7, flooding rooms, baths, even streets, so you can do almost anything by night as you would by day

    This has only been the case for a century or two - as we developed gas then electricity

    For all human evolution, before that, artificial light was extremely rare and precious - candles were for the rich. The poor had to make do with the moon and the stars. Not enough light to do anything of importance

    So waking up for 3 hours at 2am makes no economic or social sense at all

    Also you don’t want to be out and about at that time, as night time is when most predators prowl. So it doesn’t make evolutionary sense either

    I’m calling it as bollocks

    And it isn't a plot point anywhere in Chaucer or Boccaccio or Shakespeare or fairy tales or any story ever told. Which you'd think it would be.
    Yes it doesn’t hold up to a few minutes of scrutiny

    It occurs to me that “second sleep” might be siesta which IS extremely common across human societies. The post lunch nap. The full on Spanish Kip. Everyone experiences a metabolic dip in late afternoon, it is easy for that to become an actual snooze if you have the time (as they did in pre industrial societies)
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 33,521
    Applicant said:

    I truly don't understand why so many people are convinced the next Labour leader has to be a woman. I know past performance doesn't guarantee the same in the future, but unless the MPs come up with an all-woman shortlist, I'll bet accordingly: no woman has ever finished ahead of any man in any Labour leadership election ever.

    Its not just tokenism, though that is the monkey on their back, but all the best candidates are female, except possibly Streeting.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    20 degrees in my garden. In the Lakes. In May. Bliss.

    Has the entire British political establishment resigned yet over the Covid rules?

    No.

    Ah well, back to the garden.

    I think my plan for sending the entire House of Commons (and Lords) for the first manned landing on Pluto is looking increasingly sensible.

    I remember suggesting in 2018, at the height of the silly Parliamentary Brexit games, that the Queen should dissolve Parliament with the 650 incumbents all barred from standing again.

    A trip to Pluto is the wrong way though, a trip to Mercury or Venus would be better.
    The Department of Education is going on the mission to land on the Sun.

    Mercury or Venus are only a light minutes away. Too close.
    Mercury on average is over halfway there.
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,544
    edited May 8

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    Life comes at you fast
    I'm old enough to remember the days when those of us like @Big_G_NorthWales and myself were bring told by the consensus on here that the SKS story was not important and that voters would see through it....:)
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,449
    malcolmg said:

    Farooq said:

    malcolmg said:

    Farooq said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Farooq said:


    Yeah, I'd like to hear Malky's view on it too.
    It never ceases to strike me how effective Sturgeon is. I've said in the past that I admire her. A measure of her success is the way the Conservatives were over the moon with the 2017 results and now in 2022 Labour also very pleased at wresting 2nd place back off them. When your opponents are pleased with second, it says a lot.

    Salmond is just the latest in a long line of politicians who've tried to take her down and ended up in a crumpled heap instead. Whether you like her or not, her electoral record is astonishing.

    EDIT
    Too slow, Malky's thoughts now apparent.

    NS is a political colossus, no doubt, but her success is built on the foundation of conspicuously wanting, but not actually doing much to get, independence. While that approach has been electorally successful for a very long time it must run out of steam at some point.

    It's one of the reasons I think Johnson would be happy to offer an indyref to the SNP as the price of confidence and support. He knows NS doesn't really want one and he'd believe, with some justification, that he could win it anyway.

    The other reason he might do it is that he doesn't give a fuck about Scotland. That country being a minor subset of the many things that aren't Boris Johnson that he doesn't give a fuck about.
    I hear it so much it makes me doubt myself, but I'm still quite convinced that this is a mistaken view. I detect a real eagerness for a vote from the SNP leadership, but they've put the lid on it because of Covid. Now the locals are out of the way, we'll see whether I'm right or wrong. I expect a big move before the summer is out. If we get to September and it's all tumbleweed, you're right and I'm wrong.

    EDIT: rethinking slightly, by the end of the conference, when is that, October?
    would you like a wager on it
    No thanks
    @Farooq
    We can just have "a told you so " then.
    Yeah, that'll do me. This time my reasons are both because I don't bet with strangers online AND because I'm not confident enough. So you can call me a chicken on this one, that's fine. And I won't make a big deal if I happen to be right.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 19,449
    Foxy said:

    Applicant said:

    I truly don't understand why so many people are convinced the next Labour leader has to be a woman. I know past performance doesn't guarantee the same in the future, but unless the MPs come up with an all-woman shortlist, I'll bet accordingly: no woman has ever finished ahead of any man in any Labour leadership election ever.

    Its not just tokenism, though that is the monkey on their back, but all the best candidates are female, except possibly Streeting.
    There's a question mark over Streeting?
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 5,544
    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848
    MrEd said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    Life comes at you fast
    I'm old enough to remember the days when those of us like @Big_G_NorthWales and myself were bring told by the consensus on here that the SKS story was not important and that voters would see through it....:)
    The event in question still looks substantially less egregious than Johnson's indiscretions, but you are both correct Starmer and Rayner both have to go immediately, and Big Dog is saved.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 3,350
    I’m surprised that people still considered SKS a serious politician after he tried to name a Covid variant after the Prime Minister. That was a weaker fighting move than his embarrassing boxing in the gym.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,119
    IshmaelZ said:

    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    If Russia did take out the UK with a first strike, I would expect us to respond with Trident, just because. Revenge. Fuck em

    How much damage could one Trident sub do? Presumably we could wipe out Moscow and St Pete’s, but beyond that? A few more cities? Killing maybe 40-50m?

    Russia would survive, albeit fucked, unlike Britain which would be a radioactive desert for centuries

    However, if Putin was mad enough to do this, then I expect America would launch missiles too, trying to take out the rest of Russia’s nuclear capability from the getgo, the Chinese might possibly join in, and the French - targeting Russia as a menace to the world

    So on the whole, taking everything into account, I put the chances of Russia destroying Britain in the next few weeks at no more than 40%, which is kind of reassuring

    48 nukes could be launched, Russia would be a wasteland.
    I’ve just been checking Google. One Trident sub full of warheads does not mean 48 entirely vaporised cities. It means


    “Our estimates, which are supported by other studies, predict that one Trident submarine with forty 100kT warheads could cause at least 10 million casualties and as many as 20 million in 10-20 large cities and hit a further 20 military targets such as bases and command bunkers. [9] Trident missiles have a range of 7,000 miles. This, combined with the submarine’s ability to sail into any ocean area, enables it to strike targets anywhere across the globe within around 30 minutes of launch. [10]”

    Which is frankly a bit feeble

    On the other hand


    “If used, the nuclear weapons carried by just one Trident submarine could cause such huge climatic disruption that global food supplies would be at risk and the survival of human civilisation itself would be threatened.”

    Which is much more encouraging. Hmm.

    Info here:


    https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/uk-nuclear-weapons-catastrophe-making
    Forget the exaggerated garbage about a handful of nukes killing the world.

    https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    The purpose of the U.K. nukes is to hold the Russian leadership at risk - kill them in their bunkers.

    Secondarily, they could be used to take out various choke points in the Russian economy. So no rail distribution of goods, no harbours for import, no oil and gas production.

    IIRC they was an estimate in the Cold War that 100 nukes could reduce the carrying capacity of Russia for population by 90%.
    The logical thing to do (if it ever came to that) would be to take out all Russian missile silos and their military C&C infrastructure, including their sub pens, not to wipe out their cities and population.

    What you'd want to do is wipe out their leadership and any ability they had to launch subsequent second strikes.

    If Putin ever did that he could measure his lifespan in minutes. And once their nuclear "shield" had gone they'd be at the mercy of the West since NATO's forces are hugely dispersed and markedly superior.
    It’s also the right thing to do morally, targeting military facilities rather than population centres.
    Fuck off. If they’ve killed 40m Brits, i want to see 40m Russians dead
    You won't be seeing it from Camden that's for sure.
    Why do you think I”m mysteriously in the Turkish Aegean??? For no apparent reason?
    That was rather a focal point of the Cuban missile crisis, no?
    The Turkish Aegean is on the Russia strike list, almost certainly. Make the Dardanelles wider, probably….
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250
    Starmer’s cancellation of his media appearances feels ominous for him. Why would he do that unless it was serious?

    Best guess: he’s been told Durham police are going to charge him and he needs to cobble together some reason why he doesn’t have to resign
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 35,150
    Leon said:

    Starmer’s cancellation of his media appearances feels ominous for him. Why would he do that unless it was serious?

    Best guess: he’s been told Durham police are going to charge him and he needs to cobble together some reason why he doesn’t have to resign

    Yup, feels like he's preparing the bunker.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,119
    IshmaelZ said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cyclefree said:

    20 degrees in my garden. In the Lakes. In May. Bliss.

    Has the entire British political establishment resigned yet over the Covid rules?

    No.

    Ah well, back to the garden.

    I think my plan for sending the entire House of Commons (and Lords) for the first manned landing on Pluto is looking increasingly sensible.

    I remember suggesting in 2018, at the height of the silly Parliamentary Brexit games, that the Queen should dissolve Parliament with the 650 incumbents all barred from standing again.

    A trip to Pluto is the wrong way though, a trip to Mercury or Venus would be better.
    The Department of Education is going on the mission to land on the Sun.

    Mercury or Venus are only a light minutes away. Too close.
    Mercury on average is over halfway there.
    A one way trip to Pluto puts them well outside the suburbs….
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 16,848
    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 18,395
    edited May 8
    It looks like Labour have lost control of Croydon council.

    That means they lose two in London with Harrow, while gaining three in Westminster, Wandsworth and Barnet. Not such a good night in London for Labour after all.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,449

    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
    Not if he's innocent. If nothing happens with the police then he's not tainted at all.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited May 8
    Leon said:

    Starmer’s cancellation of his media appearances feels ominous for him. Why would he do that unless it was serious?

    Best guess: he’s been told Durham police are going to charge him and he needs to cobble together some reason why he doesn’t have to resign

    Your jumping from 1 to 10 there. An easier explanation is that danger is he does the media tomorrow, sticks his foot in it or gets trapped with some new evidence and makes it worse. More likely he is taking the advice of most lawyers in sticky situations, don't voluntarily talk to the police or the media.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 24,292
    Taz said:
    Could have been worse - he could have started talking about steam trains.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796
    Taz said:
    I was surprised to find they were born just a year apart, with Dennis being the younger. Pete Waterman's always struck me as an old man, even during his heyday in the 1980s...
  • ApplicantApplicant Posts: 3,379
    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
    Not if he's innocent. If nothing happens with the police then he's not tainted at all.
    By his own standards he should have resigned by now.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,449
    Applicant said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
    Not if he's innocent. If nothing happens with the police then he's not tainted at all.
    By his own standards he should have resigned by now.
    Gutting for the far left and far right that the PM has debased those standards, isn't it?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 24,250

    Leon said:

    Starmer’s cancellation of his media appearances feels ominous for him. Why would he do that unless it was serious?

    Best guess: he’s been told Durham police are going to charge him and he needs to cobble together some reason why he doesn’t have to resign

    Your jumping from 1 to 10 there. An easier explanation is that danger is he does the media tomorrow, sticks his foot in it or gets trapped with some new evidence and makes it worse. More likely he is taking the advice of most lawyers in sticky situations, don't voluntarily talk to the police or the media.
    Yes perhaps. But if you’re right it still underlines the gravity of his position. A LOTO who can’t talk to the media is unideal
  • CorrectHorseBatteryCorrectHorseBattery Posts: 21,334
    I was wrong it’s more important than I thought, happy to say so @MrEd
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 22,694

    Well I never.

    Rishi Sunak has been forced to outsource key aspects of the Treasury’s post-Brexit legal work after admitting that his department does not have the resources necessary to unleash an overhaul of financial regulation.

    Hogan Lovells, a top City law firm, has been brought in to advise the Government on everything from regulatory equivalence and crypto assets, to trade deals and the powers and duties of the Bank of England and the City watchdog.

    The Treasury admitted that its in-house legal team was “unable to support the demand” the department has for legal services as it reshapes Britain’s financial services regulation post-Brexit, according to official documents.

    It said this was owing to “a period of continued change as the UK consolidates its position, both internationally and domestically, following its exit from the EU”.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/05/08/rishi-sunak-admits-outsourcing-key-aspects-post-brexit-legal/

    "A top City law firm"??? They're good but not that good. Why aren't the PRA and the FCA's and the BoE's legal counsel involved in this?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 7,449

    Leon said:

    Starmer’s cancellation of his media appearances feels ominous for him. Why would he do that unless it was serious?

    Best guess: he’s been told Durham police are going to charge him and he needs to cobble together some reason why he doesn’t have to resign

    Your jumping from 1 to 10 there. An easier explanation is that danger is he does the media tomorrow, sticks his foot in it or gets trapped with some new evidence and makes it worse. More likely he is taking the advice of most lawyers in sticky situations, don't voluntarily talk to the police or the media.
    Yes, both explanations fit the evidence.
    Personally I'd be surprised if the police were that quick judging on recent months' evidence.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 30,796
    Applicant said:

    Farooq said:

    MrEd said:

    Foxy said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    SKS cancels Inst for Govt speech and presser tomorrow, no reason given, says r2 news

    Bizarre that a week ago I would have said Sunak was likely to be the biggest political implosion of a lifetime

    This is an existential crisis for Labour. If Sir Keir goes (and I think it's more probable than not) then what really is the point anymore? Their leaders are getting worse and worse - the last one being a fringe far-left anti-Semitic lunatic - and now they're competing with the known crook and chancer Boris Johnson on the Covid-lockdown-criminality-hypocrisy stakes. Utterly risible.
    Starmer was never going to be the Messiah. John the Baptist possibly. His job was to clear out the Trots, take the flack and step aside, so that someone with a bit more pizzaz can take a united party forward.


    Except that there were many on here who were telling us last than a week back that SKS would indeed be the next PM, that he had many qualities etc etc and - more to the point from a betting perspective - there was a very good chance he would be PM post-the next GE. Now Labour can't seem to get rid of him fast enough
    He has to go because he is personally tainted and cannot criticise Johnson's future FPNs and the results of the Gray Report. If he falls on his sword someone else (not Rayner, who also needs to go) can still call Johnson's parties out. Perhaps not as unoquivocally as they could have this time last week, but they can point out that Starmer at least did the right thing. Incoming Tory poll lead nonetheless.
    Not if he's innocent. If nothing happens with the police then he's not tainted at all.
    By his own standards he should have resigned by now.
    For the past few months I've been wittering on about how the Conservative's woes are all down to unforced errors. Then Starmer says: "Hold my beer..."

    He's supposed to be the intelligent one of the two, and he just fell into a trap he set himself.

    Johnson really is lucky. Sadly.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 72,062
    edited May 8
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Starmer’s cancellation of his media appearances feels ominous for him. Why would he do that unless it was serious?

    Best guess: he’s been told Durham police are going to charge him and he needs to cobble together some reason why he doesn’t have to resign

    Your jumping from 1 to 10 there. An easier explanation is that danger is he does the media tomorrow, sticks his foot in it or gets trapped with some new evidence and makes it worse. More likely he is taking the advice of most lawyers in sticky situations, don't voluntarily talk to the police or the media.
    Yes perhaps. But if you’re right it still underlines the gravity of his position. A LOTO who can’t talk to the media is unideal
    As i have said a number of times, he has played the politics of all of this terribly. He went flying in two footed on Boris when he could have left it to everybody else (who were doing a perfectly good job) and played it as told you rules were too confusing and illogical, we probably all inadvertently broke them at some point, but PM did more, he actively encouraged a culture of total ignoring them...such a take, he sounds reasonable and also covers his arse in case anybody did catch him on a mobile with a group of 7 rather than 6 or 1.9m away from somebody.
This discussion has been closed.