Howdy, Stranger!

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

Graham Brady – the man to whom the VONC letters are sent – politicalbetting.com

1234568»

Comments

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,294
    Looks like Boris was booed on the way out, too.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,781
    Radiohead - "the olive garden of progressive music"

    https://youtu.be/hvhDdZ0R3ws

    I don't think this guy would last long on PB.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,011
    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,807
    TimT said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,344
    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,287
    kinabalu said:

    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,781

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,011
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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!
    Ok - we'll come back to this.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,011

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,999
    edited June 2022

    TimT said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,152

    Looks like Boris was booed on the way out, too.

    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.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,718

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,344
    Taz said:

    This commentary, https://ukandeu.ac.uk/immigration-is-public-opinion-changing/ , points out that positive views of immigration and free movement increased before the UK government committed to its no-free-movement, hard Brexit.

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,011
    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    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?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,781

    Looks like Boris was booed on the way out, too.

    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?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,344
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,999

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,781
    Test match story is going to be as predictable as a disney+ star wars story....NZ get 250 lead, England collapse to 100 all out.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,683
    kinabalu said:

    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,999

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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???
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 56,999
    rcs1000 said:

    TimT said:

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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 :disappointed:
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,443
    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.

  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,454

    Looks like Boris was booed on the way out, too.

    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.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,294

    Taz said:

    This commentary, https://ukandeu.ac.uk/immigration-is-public-opinion-changing/ , points out that positive views of immigration and free movement increased before the UK government committed to its no-free-movement, hard Brexit.

    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.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,781
    edited June 2022

    Looks like Boris was booed on the way out, too.

    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).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,454
    Been out in the garden - have we lost the cricket yet?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 10,851
    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,294
    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.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,781

    Been out in the garden - have we lost the cricket yet?

    Effectively yes.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,436
    Leon said:

    Incroyable testimony from a Scouse UFC fighter, on what he saw before during and after the UCL final at Stade de France

    In some ways his account is the most compelling of all, because he fights in cages AS A JOB, and he was pretty terrified. It has gone viral in France

    https://twitter.com/rmcsportcombat/status/1532440163133136896

    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.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AOC1978/status/1530687125498351616
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 52,454

    Looks like Boris was booed on the way out, too.

    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...
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,344
    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,256
    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    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
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,256

    Been out in the garden - have we lost the cricket yet?

    Was out in garden and bizarrely my iphone shut down saying it was over temperature, had to stick it in the fridge.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,287
    kinabalu said:

    Taz said:

    kinabalu said:

    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    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 👍
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,443

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.

  • TazTaz Posts: 14,287
    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    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
    Oh no. I’d miss the pleasure of plucking them.
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,639
    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,142
    There isn't supposed to be a night session at Roland Garros. But I reckon it will be dark by the time Cilic and Ruud get on court.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,011

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,781
    edited June 2022
    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

    Bloody WFH....
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,807
    edited June 2022

    Leon said:

    Incroyable testimony from a Scouse UFC fighter, on what he saw before during and after the UCL final at Stade de France

    In some ways his account is the most compelling of all, because he fights in cages AS A JOB, and he was pretty terrified. It has gone viral in France

    https://twitter.com/rmcsportcombat/status/1532440163133136896

    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.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AOC1978/status/1530687125498351616
    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
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,443
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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'.

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,294
    Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,781
    edited June 2022

    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.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,718

    rcs1000 said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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....
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,517

    Looks like Boris was booed on the way out, too.

    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.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,011
    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,287
    edited June 2022

    Leon said:

    Incroyable testimony from a Scouse UFC fighter, on what he saw before during and after the UCL final at Stade de France

    In some ways his account is the most compelling of all, because he fights in cages AS A JOB, and he was pretty terrified. It has gone viral in France

    https://twitter.com/rmcsportcombat/status/1532440163133136896

    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.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AOC1978/status/1530687125498351616
    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
    In this case they clearly weren’t to blame.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    Leon said:

    Incroyable testimony from a Scouse UFC fighter, on what he saw before during and after the UCL final at Stade de France

    In some ways his account is the most compelling of all, because he fights in cages AS A JOB, and he was pretty terrified. It has gone viral in France

    https://twitter.com/rmcsportcombat/status/1532440163133136896

    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.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AOC1978/status/1530687125498351616
    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.
  • TazTaz Posts: 14,287

    Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.

    Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,807
    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    Incroyable testimony from a Scouse UFC fighter, on what he saw before during and after the UCL final at Stade de France

    In some ways his account is the most compelling of all, because he fights in cages AS A JOB, and he was pretty terrified. It has gone viral in France

    https://twitter.com/rmcsportcombat/status/1532440163133136896

    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.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/AOC1978/status/1530687125498351616
    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
    In this case they clearly weren’t to blame.
    no of course not -as i said she is unaware of the law thats all
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,443
    Aslan said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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?

  • The polling is not of a Government that is going to be re-elected.

    I know mid-term and all that but Johnson's numbers are Jeremy Corbyn level.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,247
    edited June 2022
    Taz said:

    Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.

    Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.
    'One' could be 'up to 70,' if taken literally.

    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.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,294
    Taz said:

    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.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,893
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.

    Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.
    'One' could be 'up to 70,' if taken literally.

    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.
    So the real story is that it may be more than 70, since it HAS to be up to 70 (even 0 is up to 70)?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,908

    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






  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,247

    Taz said:

    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...
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,294
    Leon said:

    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.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,217
    edited June 2022
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.

    Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.
    'One' could be 'up to 70,' if taken literally.

    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.
    No. If the threshold isn't reached then the newspapers look like prats.

    The maximum stupidity scenario for the Tories is that they have a vote of confidence that Boris wins by a handful.
  • ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    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...
    Theresa should tell them to fuck off
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,152
    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    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
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 34,600
    Aslan said:

    algarkirk said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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.

    Rule of Law? Ask Johnson about that one.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,908

    Leon said:

    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

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 78,058
    Between tea and drinks yesterday New Zealand got 17 overs in. England have achieved... 10 so far as I can tell.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,294
    edited June 2022
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    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.


  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,707

    ydoethur said:

    Taz said:

    Telegraph is reporting there may be up to 70 letters.

    Which is meaningless. It sounds like clickbait.
    'One' could be 'up to 70,' if taken literally.

    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.
    No. If the threshold isn't reached then the newspapers look like prats.

    The maximum stupidity scenario for the Tories is that they have a vote of confidence that Boris wins by a handful.
    If the threshold has been passed so easily then Brady will have questions to answer.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,908
    I think I ate too much Ajeri for lunch

    😶
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,142
    edited June 2022
    Pulpstar said:

    Between tea and drinks yesterday New Zealand got 17 overs in. England have achieved... 10 so far as I can tell.

    Yesterday I got 76 overs for my £140. It should have been 88 (90 minus 2 for the change of innings). But read this:

    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.
  • Not going to any street parties or any other such things, I will enjoy some peace and quiet away from work for once.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,142

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    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:

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/english-channel/index.html
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,707
    New thread.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,294
    Utterly off topic.

    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)!
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,011
    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    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?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 29,376

    Taz said:

    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.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,718
    kinabalu said:

    malcolmg said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    malcolmg said:

    kinabalu said:

    Carnyx said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    eristdoof said:

    Andy_JS said:

    kinabalu said:

    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.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,439

    THIS THREAD HAS ABDICATED

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 42,011

    algarkirk said:

    kinabalu said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Carnyx said:

    algarkirk said:

    Scott_xP said:
    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.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,503
    rcs1000 said:

    carnforth said:

    Taz said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    OllyT said:

    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”

    https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1529754662722740224?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w
    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.

    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

  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 5,006
    edited June 2022
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    OllyT said:

    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”

    https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1529754662722740224?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w
    None of which alters the fact that the polling shows that a growing plurality believe leaving was a mistake.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,503
    edited June 2022

    Looks like Boris was booed on the way out, too.

    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...
    So, you say he was skiving and not socially distancing...
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,907

    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

    Bloody WFH....

    Has JRM complained about her yet?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,256

    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

    Bloody WFH....

    Must be well knackered if she is passing up the Derby
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,344
    OllyT said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    OllyT said:

    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”

    https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1529754662722740224?s=21&t=KMEU11FDQsB_AUEfm99q9w
    None of which alters the fact that the polling shows that a growing plurality believe leaving was a mistake.
    Nah not really. Well, depending on what timescale you look at. In the last 4 years it has stayed pretty static at around 50% thinking it was wrong to leave and 40% thinking it was right. It moves up and down by a few % points and in the middle of the pandemic there were a couple of polls that showed a very small lead for 'right to leave'. But overall the numbers have not really changed for the last 4 years.

    So a 'growing plurality' is not really an accurate description.
  • TimTTimT Posts: 6,468
    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    JonWC said:

    stodge said:

    JonWC said:

    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 recommend gin with the tonic, rather than olive oil.
This discussion has been closed.