I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
I’m sure you are sincere. So am I. I’ve spent too much of my life (about ten minutes) thinking about this ludicrous “trial” and now I can’t be arsed to spend a minute more
Ca suffit. I am off to Tbilisi’s biggest Carrefour to buy some olive oil and hopefully some decent tonic. Ah, the exotic excitement!
This is well worth a minute and a half of your time. And I’m a republican.
(Don’t tell anyone, but I watched the Trooping of the Colour and the fly past yesterday and enjoyed both. I was hovering on the edge of shedding a tear. Funny what getting older does to the absolutes of youth.)
That is excellent. I know an ex Royal Family Protection Officer. I won't say who he guarded but it was one of the firm. We asked him from any stories about Andrew, but there was nothing negative at all. Only story we got was one of him rescuing a cat.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.
I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.
An eighth of an ounce is 3.5 grams. Sign of a wasted youth, that.
This says people prioritise control over reducing immigration. We also see, as in the previous report, support for high skilled immigrants. This report also says that no one thinks the Government have got it right. Those who love immigration and the immigration opponents both think the Govt is handling the situation badly.
This is well worth a minute and a half of your time. And I’m a republican.
(Don’t tell anyone, but I watched the Trooping of the Colour and the fly past yesterday and enjoyed both. I was hovering on the edge of shedding a tear. Funny what getting older does to the absolutes of youth.)
That is excellent. I know an ex Royal Family Protection Officer. I won't say who he guarded but it was one of the firm. We asked him from any stories about Andrew, but there was nothing negative at all. Only story we got was one of him rescuing a cat.
Thats quite refreshing in the sense of somebody who does not spout his mouth off about his previous employment - Quite old school .
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.
I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.
It's 28.34 grams.
Which is not a lot of use, really.
An ounce is about a handful.
An ounce is a useful measure of freedom (give him an ounce of freedom and he bla bla)
I think i have heard courage measured in pints as well?
Maybe more modern concepts need to be in metric though - What should wokeness be measured in - metres , grammes , kelvin?
Seems you'd need both extremes for wokeness - perhaps yottalitres for the woke as they are more likely to be pro-metric, and minim** for the unwoke, as they are more likely to be pro-Imperial
* 1 septillion litres, or 1 trillion teralitres, almost 4 times the volume of the entire earth ** 1⁄60 of a fluid drachm or 1⁄480 of a fluid ounce
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.
Bizarrely yes. So maybe Amber can go on Lorraine but not on Oprah.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.
In which case, the EU should standardise the measurement for it.
For the purposes of clarity, the graph on “immigration is one of UK’s most important problems”. Look at that drop. In 2016. Not worth over-thinking this
it rather depends on if you think immigration is a bad thing . To me anyone with a bit of sense would think its a good thing for Britain as well as being fair and nice thing for individuals (both ways )
This is well worth a minute and a half of your time. And I’m a republican.
(Don’t tell anyone, but I watched the Trooping of the Colour and the fly past yesterday and enjoyed both. I was hovering on the edge of shedding a tear. Funny what getting older does to the absolutes of youth.)
That is excellent. I know an ex Royal Family Protection Officer. I won't say who he guarded but it was one of the firm. We asked him from any stories about Andrew, but there was nothing negative at all. Only story we got was one of him rescuing a cat.
Thats quite refreshing in the sense of somebody who does not spout his mouth off about his previous employment - Quite old school .
He did tell us that leaving their guns in hotel safes, train loos, etc was a lot more common than reported, although he stressed he had never done it.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.
For the purposes of clarity, the graph on “immigration is one of UK’s most important problems”. Look at that drop. In 2016. Not worth over-thinking this
I don't think we could conclude from this that remainers are not angry about the end of freedom-of-movement.
I think most people, if asked to give the three most important issues facing the country implicitly add words. For example
(too much) immigration (too little) health funding
I'm not sure someone who thinks the NHS spends too much money is likely to name "health funding" as one of their top concerns, for example.
In the same way, someone angry about the end of freedom of movement is unlikely to list "immigration" as one of their top concerns.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.
I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.
An eighth of an ounce is 3.5 grams. Sign of a wasted youth, that.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.
One of the big problems the benefits of immigration has had is the dishonesty of politicians talking tough about it while actively enabling it. Both new labour and Cameron’s Tories did this. They were too spineless to make the case for their policy.
The one problem this gave was making it seems Immigration was a problem that the govt was powerless to control
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.
Allegedly your nose as well
Yes, your nostrils get wider and hairier. I'm looking forward to that.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.
Quantum Depp
Schroedinger's Depp
given his previous famous credits , what is he when he is on the High Seas?
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Free speech has never, in modern times, included the right to make false claims about someone and defame them. In this instance the freedom of speech argument is completely false.
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.
Allegedly your nose as well
Yes, your nostrils get wider and hairier. I'm looking forward to that.
Nostril hair waxing is something I will give a miss.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.
In which case, the EU should standardise the measurement for it.
Not sure we should look to EU for consistency, remember Russian Oil isn't russian oil if it comes via a pipeline directly from russia, but it is if it comes via ship.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
I’m sure you are sincere. So am I. I’ve spent too much of my life (about ten minutes) thinking about this ludicrous “trial” and now I can’t be arsed to spend a minute more
Ca suffit. I am off to Tbilisi’s biggest Carrefour to buy some olive oil and hopefully some decent tonic. Ah, the exotic excitement!
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Free speech has never, in modern times, included the right to make false claims about someone and defame them. In this instance the freedom of speech argument is completely false.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.
Quantum Depp
Schroedinger's Depp
given his previous famous credits , what is he when he is on the High Seas?
Surely, based on the trial, we should be talking about when he's high on the C.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.
In which case, the EU should standardise the measurement for it.
Not sure we should look to EU for consistency, remember Russian Oil isn't russian oil if it comes via a pipeline directly from russia, but it is if it comes via ship.
Maybe so, but if the Americans do it, they will cock it up badly, and if we do it, no-one else will follow it anyway.
One of the big problems the benefits of immigration has had is the dishonesty of politicians talking tough about it while actively enabling it. Both new labour and Cameron’s Tories did this. They were too spineless to make the case for their policy.
The one problem this gave was making it seems Immigration was a problem that the govt was powerless to control
The bigger problem was that Governments of all stripes - starting with Blair - have been dishonest about the rates of immigration they are allowing. Not just refusing to support their own policies but actively lying about them. This meant there were big increases in populations in some council areas which central government refused to recognise so leaving those areas desperately short of funding for basic things like education and health care.
A more honest government would not just have made the case for more immigration but would have recognised (indeed promoted) the scale of what was happening and made sure proper resourcing was in place to support it.
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.
Allegedly your nose as well
Yes, your nostrils get wider and hairier. I'm looking forward to that.
Nostril hair waxing is something I will give a miss.
Has he had a proper public booing before? Part of me thinks he must have, but I'm not sure when.
For someone who gives the impression of needing to be liked (in a way that, George Osbourne, say, didn't), it must hurt.
Didn't he get incoming when he was on holiday during the london riots and took 2-3 before he came back and then tried to do PR shots of helping clean up?
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Free speech has never, in modern times, included the right to make false claims about someone and defame them. In this instance the freedom of speech argument is completely false.
That's not my question though.
It makes your question void. At least as far as the point about free speech goes. Heard is able to say what she likes, where she likes. But if that is considered defamation then she can be sued for it. The situation is exactly the same as it was before the trial. If you don't want to be sued then don't make false claims.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Free speech has never, in modern times, included the right to make false claims about someone and defame them. In this instance the freedom of speech argument is completely false.
The US libel laws, though, allow much more latitude in saying things than do the British. If I were to claim that Tony Blair was a pedophile, and he were to sue me in a British Court, the onus would be on me to prove that my claims were in fact accurate. By contrast, if he were to sue me in the US, the hurdles would be much more severe. He would need to prove - essentially - that I knew he was not a pedophile and chose to publish anyway. It's why the UK is the libel capital of the world, and why Depp chose to sue there first.
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.
Allegedly your nose as well
Yes, your nostrils get wider and hairier. I'm looking forward to that.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Free speech has never, in modern times, included the right to make false claims about someone and defame them. In this instance the freedom of speech argument is completely false.
That's not my question though.
It makes your question void. At least as far as the point about free speech goes. Heard is able to say what she likes, where she likes. But if that is considered defamation then she can be sued for it. The situation is exactly the same as it was before the trial. If you don't want to be sued then don't make false claims.
Can we sue politicians for making false claims about their virtue, competence, plans, etc?
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Officially, he's a wife beater in the UK, and definitely not a wife beater in the US.
Quantum Depp
Schroedinger's Depp
given his previous famous credits , what is he when he is on the High Seas?
Surely, based on the trial, we should be talking about when he's high on the C.
I thought that was rather good personally. But did it garner a single like? No it didn't
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
Should we pander to the likes of Steve though? Shouldn't he be helped into 2022? Sort of a 'cruel to be kind' ethic.
You don't create crimes to stop people being old fashioned in their harmless ways. Or even silly.
Has he had a proper public booing before? Part of me thinks he must have, but I'm not sure when.
For someone who gives the impression of needing to be liked (in a way that, George Osbourne, say, didn't), it must hurt.
Boris was always going to get a damn good shoeing, because....HM the Queen alone on the night before Phillip's funeral. Regardless of whether Boris was present at the partying, he oversaw the culture. Said at the time it came out it was the sort of thing you don't get over - especially when those most aggrieved would be largely Conservative ladies of a certain age.
One of the big problems the benefits of immigration has had is the dishonesty of politicians talking tough about it while actively enabling it. Both new labour and Cameron’s Tories did this. They were too spineless to make the case for their policy.
The one problem this gave was making it seems Immigration was a problem that the govt was powerless to control
The bigger problem was that Governments of all stripes - starting with Blair - have been dishonest about the rates of immigration they are allowing. Not just refusing to support their own policies but actively lying about them. This meant there were big increases in populations in some council areas which central government refused to recognise so leaving those areas desperately short of funding for basic things like education and health care.
A more honest government would not just have made the case for more immigration but would have recognised (indeed promoted) the scale of what was happening and made sure proper resourcing was in place to support it.
I would go even further.
Much of the economic benefit of immigration is captured by the well off (this is true of most growth these days).
The host communities need to be OVER compensated to ensure a fair sharing in the proceeds of growth.
Has he had a proper public booing before? Part of me thinks he must have, but I'm not sure when.
For someone who gives the impression of needing to be liked (in a way that, George Osbourne, say, didn't), it must hurt.
Boris was always going to get a damn good shoeing, because....HM the Queen alone on the night before Phillip's funeral. Regardless of whether Boris was present at the partying, he oversaw the culture. Said at the time it came out it was the sort of thing you don't get over - especially when those most aggrieved would be largely Conservative ladies of a certain age.
I also suspect a lot of people think Boris was personally at that party. His apology sort of made it sound like he was and rarely is it made clear he wasn't. Also because he has been caught lying about all of this people was suspect he is lying about not being there anyway (despite in this incident it is provable he wasn't anywhere near it).
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
Should we pander to the likes of Steve though? Shouldn't he be helped into 2022? Sort of a 'cruel to be kind' ethic.
You don't create crimes to stop people being old fashioned in their harmless ways. Or even silly.
We created those laws decades ago. If there are any Steves left who are affected, they are very small in number. Again, should this be the top priority of a UK government facing multiple crises?
France has its own AOC called Amélie Oudéa-Castéra who's the minister of sports. She tried to blame the problems on "thousands of English fans" trying to get into the stadium without tickets.
Has he had a proper public booing before? Part of me thinks he must have, but I'm not sure when.
For someone who gives the impression of needing to be liked (in a way that, George Osbourne, say, didn't), it must hurt.
Boris was always going to get a damn good shoeing, because....HM the Queen alone on the night before Phillip's funeral. Regardless of whether Boris was present at the partying, he oversaw the culture. Said at the time it came out it was the sort of thing you don't get over - especially when those most aggrieved would be largely Conservative ladies of a certain age.
I also suspect a lot of people think Boris was personally at that party. His apology sort of made it sound like he was and rarely is it made clear he wasn't.
His problem is now that a significant section of the electorate still wouldn't believe him if the Dalai Lama produced a picture of them in orbit together that evening at the International Space Station...
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Free speech has never, in modern times, included the right to make false claims about someone and defame them. In this instance the freedom of speech argument is completely false.
That's not my question though.
It makes your question void. At least as far as the point about free speech goes. Heard is able to say what she likes, where she likes. But if that is considered defamation then she can be sued for it. The situation is exactly the same as it was before the trial. If you don't want to be sued then don't make false claims.
Can we sue politicians for making false claims about their virtue, competence, plans, etc?
Please???
Apparently it only applies if people believe it. No one believes a word politicians say anyway so no one is being deceived.
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.
Allegedly your nose as well
Yes, your nostrils get wider and hairier. I'm looking forward to that.
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.
Allegedly your nose as well
Yes, your nostrils get wider and hairier. I'm looking forward to that.
Nostril hair waxing is something I will give a miss.
What you're going to just let yourself go?
Too late for that !!
However I’m sure the Remington Fuzaway does the job for ears and nostrils 👍
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
Should we pander to the likes of Steve though? Shouldn't he be helped into 2022? Sort of a 'cruel to be kind' ethic.
You don't create crimes to stop people being old fashioned in their harmless ways. Or even silly.
We created those laws decades ago. If there are any Steves left who are affected, they are very small in number. Again, should this be the top priority of a UK government facing multiple crises?
No. But reducing the number of unimportant criminal offences is a small gain. It got the publicity it did because it's a retail tabloid issue for a particular audience. It's trivial.
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.
Allegedly your nose as well
Yes, your nostrils get wider and hairier. I'm looking forward to that.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
But he already has that slack!
Anyway, off to finish decluttering the room ...
Which is why the matter is trivial. Steve can sell in pounds under a dual system now, there is a consultation over whether he can also use pound scales and not provide a metric price alternative as well. It is a trivial piece of tabloid retail politics on all sides.
The only not trivial bit is the subtext in prosecuting Steve for minor regulatory offences (metric martyrs and all that). This is an exercise in 'We are the masters now. And we don't want oiks putting two fingers up to our EU ideals'.
But he should certainly be prosecuted. Much of the population don't understand the units, and therefore not using metric strikes at the very concept of a fair market. We are where we are now.
My experience is that at least as many people understand imperial as metric and rather more don't really understand the specifics of either.
I work on the theory that a pound is half a kilo. An ounce? Not quite sure how much that is.
An eighth of an ounce is 3.5 grams. Sign of a wasted youth, that.
Oh aye, them were the days. A 1p coin was the perfect weight of you used old school scales, none of that newfangled digital muck.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Free speech has never, in modern times, included the right to make false claims about someone and defame them. In this instance the freedom of speech argument is completely false.
That's not my question though.
It makes your question void. At least as far as the point about free speech goes. Heard is able to say what she likes, where she likes. But if that is considered defamation then she can be sued for it. The situation is exactly the same as it was before the trial. If you don't want to be sued then don't make false claims.
Well not false per our courts - and we live here - but ok that's a technically correct summary of the generality. And keeping it general then, you don't see any free speech angle in the ability of the rich and powerful to use the legal system like this? Imagine being in an abusive marriage (our truth here in the UK) and not being able to say so. That's not a great place to be.
Her Majesty will not attend the Epsom Derby tomorrow but is expected to watch it on television at Windsor Castle. The Princess Royal is expected to attend, representing her mother 🐎 #PlatinumJubilee
France has its own AOC called Amélie Oudéa-Castéra who's the minister of sports. She tried to blame the problems on "thousands of English fans" trying to get into the stadium without tickets.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.
Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.
I key thing is how many more MPs will have their mind focused over this long weekend. I imagine they are getting plenty of incoming from their local communities.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
Ah, I see. Not an exam you have to sit then.
On the Free Speech thing, forgetting Muslims for a minute (if you can), imagine Amber goes on Oprah and Oprah asks her, "So you made up all the stuff about being abused then?"
What's her legal options for answering?
Really don’t give a shit about Amber Heard
Or about the issue of free speech. Otherwise you would give a shit. It was a genuine question, btw, not a trick one. Is she gagged in public on this issue now? If not why not? And if so what are the wider implications?
Free speech has never, in modern times, included the right to make false claims about someone and defame them. In this instance the freedom of speech argument is completely false.
That's not my question though.
It makes your question void. At least as far as the point about free speech goes. Heard is able to say what she likes, where she likes. But if that is considered defamation then she can be sued for it. The situation is exactly the same as it was before the trial. If you don't want to be sued then don't make false claims.
Can we sue politicians for making false claims about their virtue, competence, plans, etc?
Please???
Apparently it only applies if people believe it. No one believes a word politicians say anyway so no one is being deceived.
Fox news defence. Our output is entertainment that is sometimes fictional, not news....
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.
Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
Has he had a proper public booing before? Part of me thinks he must have, but I'm not sure when.
For someone who gives the impression of needing to be liked (in a way that, George Osbourne, say, didn't), it must hurt.
Boris was always going to get a damn good shoeing, because....HM the Queen alone on the night before Phillip's funeral. Regardless of whether Boris was present at the partying, he oversaw the culture. Said at the time it came out it was the sort of thing you don't get over - especially when those most aggrieved would be largely Conservative ladies of a certain age.
I also suspect a lot of people think Boris was personally at that party. His apology sort of made it sound like he was and rarely is it made clear he wasn't.
His problem is now that a significant section of the electorate still wouldn't believe him if the Dalai Lama produced a picture of them in orbit together that evening at the International Space Station...
And if he did, then a penalty notice should be issued to him as well. Clearly not a work meeting unless Buddhism was discussed.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
Should we pander to the likes of Steve though? Shouldn't he be helped into 2022? Sort of a 'cruel to be kind' ethic.
You don't create crimes to stop people being old fashioned in their harmless ways. Or even silly.
No, agreed. We've settled on Steve being discouraged not sanctioned. That's the sweet spot. Unfortunately the govt seems bent on encouraging him. So another piece of nonsense from them, I'm afraid. Hard to see it any other way.
France has its own AOC called Amélie Oudéa-Castéra who's the minister of sports. She tried to blame the problems on "thousands of English fans" trying to get into the stadium without tickets.
France has its own AOC called Amélie Oudéa-Castéra who's the minister of sports. She tried to blame the problems on "thousands of English fans" trying to get into the stadium without tickets.
of course we brits know best -maybe she is unaware of the law that scouse footie fans are always the victims and never to blame
This is all actually genuinely outrageous. What are the UK government doing to launch a complaint to the French? British tourists to their country were violently mugged in broad daylight at a major French sporting event while the police did nothing. Then they blamed the victims afterwards.
France has its own AOC called Amélie Oudéa-Castéra who's the minister of sports. She tried to blame the problems on "thousands of English fans" trying to get into the stadium without tickets.
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.
Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
Marx, Adam Smith, Kant and Napoleon are all seen as creatures of the enlightenment. In wonder what they have in common?
Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.
Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.
Probably. They are also reporting that government whips are to launch a charm offensive to 60-odd suspected wobblers, including Theresa May, Tom Tugendhat, and Guy Opperman.
Those immigration sentiment stats posted earlier track perfectly with tabloid coverage of immigration issues.
(You can find this yourself by clicking on the original twitter thread link).
It seems a reasonable explanation then that Brexit hasn’t actually changed opinions, it’s just that the Daily Mail has stopped ranting about it.
Jesus. You’re so desperate for nothing good to come from Brexit that when something obviously good comes from Brexit you reach for the last refuge of the twat “it’s the Daily Mail, innit”
The FT, not notably pro Brexit, thinks the move to more positive sentiments on migration is because Brexit
Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.
Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.
Probably. They are also reporting that government whips are to launch a charm offensive to 60-odd suspected wobblers, including Theresa May, Tom Tugendhat, and Guy Opperman.
Those immigration sentiment stats posted earlier track perfectly with tabloid coverage of immigration issues.
(You can find this yourself by clicking on the original twitter thread link).
It seems a reasonable explanation then that Brexit hasn’t actually changed opinions, it’s just that the Daily Mail has stopped ranting about it.
Jesus. You’re so desperate for nothing good to come from Brexit that when something obviously good comes from Brexit you reach for the last refuge of the twat “it’s the Daily Mail, innit”
The FT, not notably pro Brexit, thinks the move to more positive sentiments on migration is because Brexit
Yes and from that series is the one showing the correlation with tabloid coverage.
Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.
Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.
Probably. They are also reporting that government whips are to launch a charm offensive to 60-odd suspected wobblers, including Theresa May, Tom Tugendhat, and Guy Opperman.
Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.
Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.
Probably. They are also reporting that government whips are to launch a charm offensive to 60-odd suspected wobblers, including Theresa May, Tom Tugendhat, and Guy Opperman.
Why bother if there are already 70 letters.
Fuck me. The irony.
She must be loving this...
OK, it's bank holiday tittle-tattle.
But if May and Tugendhat are in the "maybe" column, I shudder to think what the "definitely no" list looks like.
(And I don't begrudge TMexPM a nanosecond of any schadenfreude she is currently experiencing.)
As soon as Brexit happened concern about immigration went down because people think that by Brexiting we've automatically got lower immigration, which arguably is true because we've scared off all the doctors and nurses that used to come over from the EU
I was thinking of voting LibDem in the forthcoming T and H election, as I want Boris out. Reading this thread reminded my why I swore not to do that again.
Care to elaborate?
EU. The core leadership of the party would throw anything away, even liberalism and democracy, for it. The members used to be a bit more equivocal, and the voters at least in the SW were downright hostile.
I have knocked on literally thousands of doors for the LibDems. I was always bemused when other canvassers would report that Europe never came up, whereas I would receive it loud and clear at 120 decibels. I guess you hear what you want to hear.
I recall the LibDems staging a strop when their demand to get an in/out referendum was turned down. Of course when they (we) did get offered one a few years later they voted against it, duly lost it and used every trick in the Trump book to frustrate its implementation (with the honourable exception of the late great Paddy Ashdown).
Democracy when it suits doesn't work for me so I left the party after 28 years. Since then they seems to have been captured by the worst excesses of student extremism and pretty much reject the Enlightenment never mind about classical liberalism.
I actually think Jeremy Corbyn has a stronger grip on reality than the likes of Layla Moran.
A Lib Dem that gets it! Bravo
OK an ex Lib Dem, but still
Yes, the attempts to thwart the 2016 vote were Trumpite, minus the flares and buffalo horns. It was still a shameful bid to subvert democracy
I could actually vote for a really liberal, really democratic Lib Dem party. Socially relaxed, fiscally prudent, friendly to all our neighbours (including the EU), sound on defence and the union, strong on the Enlightenment, not full of Woke lefty idiots or lying greedy Tories. Sadly, I can’t see that in the LDs right now
"strong on the Enlightenment" - lol.
Yeah, you know: Free Speech. No de facto blasphemy laws. That kinda shit
There were, and are, several 'Enlightenments', just as there were several 'Reformations'.
Yeah but the Enlightenment that matters is one many of us are attached to. Unfortunately, much of the modern left seems content to throw it in the bin. Free speech, democracy, rule of law etc.
Bullshit!
Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?
Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.
Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.
Those immigration sentiment stats posted earlier track perfectly with tabloid coverage of immigration issues.
(You can find this yourself by clicking on the original twitter thread link).
It seems a reasonable explanation then that Brexit hasn’t actually changed opinions, it’s just that the Daily Mail has stopped ranting about it.
Jesus. You’re so desperate for nothing good to come from Brexit that when something obviously good comes from Brexit you reach for the last refuge of the twat “it’s the Daily Mail, innit”
The FT, not notably pro Brexit, thinks the move to more positive sentiments on migration is because Brexit
Yes and from that series is the one showing the correlation with tabloid coverage.
I assume you haven’t found it yet.
I’ll go with John Burns Murdoch of the FT, who has been so good on Covid. He’s the data guru
Those immigration sentiment stats posted earlier track perfectly with tabloid coverage of immigration issues.
(You can find this yourself by clicking on the original twitter thread link).
It seems a reasonable explanation then that Brexit hasn’t actually changed opinions, it’s just that the Daily Mail has stopped ranting about it.
Jesus. You’re so desperate for nothing good to come from Brexit that when something obviously good comes from Brexit you reach for the last refuge of the twat “it’s the Daily Mail, innit”
The FT, not notably pro Brexit, thinks the move to more positive sentiments on migration is because Brexit
Yes and from that series is the one showing the correlation with tabloid coverage.
I assume you haven’t found it yet.
I’ll go with John Burns Murdoch of the FT, who has been so good on Covid. He’s the data guru
Those immigration sentiment stats posted earlier track perfectly with tabloid coverage of immigration issues.
(You can find this yourself by clicking on the original twitter thread link).
It seems a reasonable explanation then that Brexit hasn’t actually changed opinions, it’s just that the Daily Mail has stopped ranting about it.
Jesus. You’re so desperate for nothing good to come from Brexit that when something obviously good comes from Brexit you reach for the last refuge of the twat “it’s the Daily Mail, innit”
The FT, not notably pro Brexit, thinks the move to more positive sentiments on migration is because Brexit
Yes and from that series is the one showing the correlation with tabloid coverage.
I assume you haven’t found it yet.
I’ll go with John Burns Murdoch of the FT, who has been so good on Covid. He’s the data guru
Indeed.
I assume this lot don't count to Mail stories on immigration:
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.
Allegedly your nose as well
Yes, your nostrils get wider and hairier. I'm looking forward to that.
Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.
Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.
Probably. They are also reporting that government whips are to launch a charm offensive to 60-odd suspected wobblers, including Theresa May, Tom Tugendhat, and Guy Opperman.
Why bother if there are already 70 letters.
Guy Opperman? If he's a "wobbler" then the PM is in trouble. Makes @HYUFD look like a serial free thinker.
Morning all. I think this one is pretty easy. The ideal is obviously to have standard units of measurement that everyone - young and old, right left or centrist, British or burdened by being foreign - understands and uses. That's the point of a measurement system. Clarity and consistency across people and places. So this should be the direction of travel. Going in the opposite direction, whilst not the most terrible thing in the world, is a bit silly. Which is on brand for this government. Everything they do that isn't terrible is a bit silly.
Hardly anyone in the UK uses metric measurements to describe their height.
Height really is the exteme in the measurement discussion though. In Australia they introduced the metric system for everything well over fifty years ago. When I lived there 20 years ago, most people still quoted their height in feet and inches even though all other linear measurements were in m/km/cm/mm and not many know how far 10 miles is. Weight is always given in Kg even in informal conversation.
I'm sure the reason for this is that people numeric height's are quoted and discussed in informal conversation very often (much more often than weight is) and so the old units remain in common usage for a long time.
Also height, unlike weight, effectively doesn't change for an adult.
Once you know your height, as an adult, you quote the same number pretty much for the rest of your life. Quoting a different number would be as alien as changing your date of birth.
Surely you'd soon get used to saying 160 cm instead of 5 foot 3?
I just compare it to my other large object and that works pretty well
Never compare! Used to spoil my after-pool changing room experience, that did.
But that's a good point re height. I was last measured, oh, more than half a likely lifetime ago, when they were still working in feet and inches ... have never been measured in metric, though had to convert to metric to work out bmi.
Same here. I do happen to know my metric metric but it's not what springs to mind. And, yes, height is different to weight because after a time it doesn't change - other than a touch of shrinkage post 65. But this is compensated for by your ears getting bigger.
Allegedly your nose as well
Yes, your nostrils get wider and hairier. I'm looking forward to that.
Ears hairier, too.
Turkish barber burn them off
Your ears! - how much does that cost?
Included in the price of a "normal" haircut. It is weird bordering on scary the first time the barber lights up a taper and wafts it around your head. Not something I was expecting at all.
Of course it's populist nonsense in terms of presentation. But there's a but.
The job of regulation is to ensure that there isn't fraud in weights and measures, and that information is given and not kept secret. That is not the same as which systems are allowed.
The best judge of how to measure things is the free market. Supermarkets have nothing to fear. A handful of them control the market and how suppliers shall operate. They also have to listen to customers.
If market traders in Barnsley and Essex want to sell apples in pounds there is decent reason for this to be decriminalised.
NB in my local German owned supermarket I buy their own brand coffee entirely in metric. The bags contain the memorable quantity of 227 grm. (Why, by the way)? Would it really be a crime to call it half a pound or 8 oz, which it is?
The buggers are already allowed to sell their apples in pounds, just so long as metric weights are also given.
Yes. The change being suggested is not great, though of course which system is the compulsory one gives a clue as to who is in charge.
And it is the sort of thing which showed a very un-UK like style of enforcement which did huge damage at the tabloid level. Governments, even Labour ones, forgot that popular tabloid readers vote.
A one size fits all approach whether you are selling potatoes to old ladies in Barnsley or doing designs for missile defence systems is not a winner.
Er, a one size approach is very necessary for missiles, and indeed anything remotely complex. Vide the Mars Climate Orbiter, which relied on a mixture of imperial (US variety) and metric.
Agree. I think you misinterpret me. Potatoes and missiles don't require the same system as each other. It is possible, if trivial, to allow Steve in Barnsley a bit of slack on the banana front without destroying the planet.
Should we pander to the likes of Steve though? Shouldn't he be helped into 2022? Sort of a 'cruel to be kind' ethic.
You don't create crimes to stop people being old fashioned in their harmless ways. Or even silly.
We created those laws decades ago. If there are any Steves left who are affected, they are very small in number. Again, should this be the top priority of a UK government facing multiple crises?
"Pound of yer best granny smiths please Bert." "Course m'dear." "How's the lumbago?" "Mustn't grumble." "See that Starmer again saying women can have willies?" "World's going mad. Won't be getting my vote." "Nor mine, Bert. Least you know where you are with Boris."
I think the Johnson team envisage something like this. Didn't work for Morrison in Oz though. Not sure it'll work here either. I do hope not.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
Brexit was a vote to control not stop immigration. I expect the High levels of positivity are down to our ability/perceived ability to control it.
I would like to believe this narrative, because it suits me to do so. But I do wonder if some Remainers are just giving the pro-immigration answer to the polling question reflexively, as a way of signalling their distaste at Brexit, not as a reflection of their actual opinion on immigration policy. That would juice the pro-immigration numbers, no matter what Leavers did.
So, you think Remainers are saying they're happy with immigration post Brexit as a way of signalling that they're unhappy with Brexit?
I know many people. Literally dozens. I don't know any that put even one tenth of the amount of effort into crafting opinion poll answers as that.
A lot depends on how the question is phrased, but overall by 73% to 16% Britons feel that the government is handling immigration badly.
My issue with Brexit now is that anyone that raises issues is told they're trying to get us to rejoin.
I have no interest in seeing us back in the EU, we've left, fine. But the current arrangement is not working
There is a reason the leavers don't really want Brexit discussed, they are on the back foot and have been for years. Even at the point we actually left a plurality of voters believed it was wrong to leave. That has never wavered and in fact is increasing according to the last poll I saw - - 12% gap now IIRC. Any criticism is shouted down as people wanting to rejoin. Even that is not really working. The numbers who believe Brexit has been a success continues to decline.
I think it's because there are no tangible benefits. The Brexit dividend - as Leon has said and I agree with him both that it's the only one and a big and genuine one - is in the mind. It's about the people who voted Leave because they felt somehow oppressed by Brussels now feeling that bit more free and empowered and *listened to*. Fine and dandy - but of course if their material prosaic lives don't get better this feeling will fade over time. Which they aren't and hence it is.
If you want a “tangible” Brexit benefit, though still psychological (I suppose) how about this. Polling on migration is at record positives. People feel more relaxed about it than ever.
Now, there are question marks over this, not least how long it can last with the Channel crossings, and very large numbers for net migration, nonetheless since Brexit immigration has plummeted down the list of things which concern people. And, generally, that is a healthy sign in a society. And this has happened because we have taken back control of our borders, after Brexit: see the graph in tweet 3 which shows exactly this. Concern about migration peaked in 2016, then fell off a cliff, afterwards
As the tweeter notes, paradoxically, Remainers and lefties find this quite awkward, as it rather upends their favoured narrative. The thread is worth reading in toto
“Latest ONS migration figures show record inflows of people from outside the EU to fill jobs and study in the UK, and very large numbers settling from Hong Kong via the BN(O) route. Meanwhile, polling consistently shows record positivity about immigration”
Comments
Ca suffit. I am off to Tbilisi’s biggest Carrefour to buy some olive oil and hopefully some decent tonic. Ah, the exotic excitement!
Sign of a wasted youth, that.
This says people prioritise control over reducing immigration. We also see, as in the previous report, support for high skilled immigrants. This report also says that no one thinks the Government have got it right. Those who love immigration and the immigration opponents both think the Govt is handling the situation badly.
* 1 septillion litres, or 1 trillion teralitres, almost 4 times the volume of the entire earth
** 1⁄60 of a fluid drachm or 1⁄480 of a fluid ounce
I think most people, if asked to give the three most important issues facing the country implicitly add words. For example
(too much) immigration
(too little) health funding
I'm not sure someone who thinks the NHS spends too much money is likely to name "health funding" as one of their top concerns, for example.
In the same way, someone angry about the end of freedom of movement is unlikely to list "immigration" as one of their top concerns.
The one problem this gave was making it seems Immigration was a problem that the govt was powerless to control
https://youtu.be/hvhDdZ0R3ws
I don't think this guy would last long on PB.
For someone who gives the impression of needing to be liked (in a way that, George Osbourne, say, didn't), it must hurt.
A more honest government would not just have made the case for more immigration but would have recognised (indeed promoted) the scale of what was happening and made sure proper resourcing was in place to support it.
Please???
Much of the economic benefit of immigration is captured by the well off (this is true of most growth these days).
The host communities need to be OVER compensated to ensure a fair sharing in the proceeds of growth.
(You can find this yourself by clicking on the original twitter thread link).
It seems a reasonable explanation then that Brexit hasn’t actually changed opinions, it’s just that the Daily Mail has stopped ranting about it.
https://mobile.twitter.com/AOC1978/status/1530687125498351616
However I’m sure the Remington Fuzaway does the job for ears and nostrils 👍
Bloody WFH....
I know mid-term and all that but Johnson's numbers are Jeremy Corbyn level.
What we can say is if the threshold isn't reached after all this chatter the Tories will look even more preternaturally stupid than they already do.
Why bother if there are already 70 letters.
The FT, not notably pro Brexit, thinks the move to more positive sentiments on migration is because Brexit
She must be loving this...
I assume you haven’t found it yet.
The maximum stupidity scenario for the Tories is that they have a vote of confidence that Boris wins by a handful.
But if May and Tugendhat are in the "maybe" column, I shudder to think what the "definitely no" list looks like.
(And I don't begrudge TMexPM a nanosecond of any schadenfreude she is currently experiencing.)
Democracy? The Enlightenment is generally reckoned to have occurred through the 17th and 18th centuries. What was the state of democracy in the UK by 1800? What percentage of the adult population do you think had a vote?
Free Speech? In 1795, the Parliament enacted the Treason Act and Seditious Meetings Act to suppress the burgeoning Radical movement calling for Parliamentary reform.
Democracy and Free Speech were only won because left-wing activists fought for them.
Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
😶
https://wisden.com/stories/news-stories/why-the-iccs-minimum-over-rate-requirement-is-anything-but
Basically, they can do as they like, though if we get past 60 overs, England might be in some trouble.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/english-channel/index.html
I have just picked up a copy of “Geography is Destiny: Britain and the World” by Ian Morris.
Did you know that Homo sapiens got to Australia (60,000 years ago) before Britain (43,000 years ago)!
If he's a "wobbler" then the PM is in trouble. Makes @HYUFD look like a serial free thinker.
THIS THREAD HAS ABDICATED
"Course m'dear."
"How's the lumbago?"
"Mustn't grumble."
"See that Starmer again saying women can have willies?"
"World's going mad. Won't be getting my vote."
"Nor mine, Bert. Least you know where you are with Boris."
I think the Johnson team envisage something like this. Didn't work for Morrison in Oz though. Not sure it'll work here either. I do hope not.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/how-the-government-is-handling-the-issue-of-immigration-in-the-uk?crossBreak=ivotedtoremain
Labour and Remain voters are more positive about immigration overall:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/has-immigration-in-the-past-10-years-been-good-for-britain