My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
That's real man's talk, that is. Mine's only 30". I need to up my game.
I’m so relaxed about the ‘size’ issue I couldn’t tell you how big mine is. All I can say is that it’s the largest that it’s ever been.
A friend tells me the only time he has regretted owning a 75 inch tv was when he watched home made porn on it, shot in 4K HDR on an iPhone.
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
That's real man's talk, that is. Mine's only 30". I need to up my game.
I’m so relaxed about the ‘size’ issue I couldn’t tell you how big mine is. All I can say is that it’s the largest that it’s ever been.
Mine is quite small, but I tell my wife that it looks bigger if you sit closer to it.
Our neighbour has an enormous one. I can see it through the window.
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
You're not getting what an ID card is.
You need a licence to drive. If you're driving, it's usually reasonable for the police to check that you've got a licence. Same goes for if you keep lions or submachine guns.
An ID card proves who you are. That's all it does. A driving licence proves you've got the right to carry out a specialised activity that obviously should be licenced.
You don't need a licence to walk down the street.
F******* hell! A driving license confirms one's identify. If you fly from England to Northern Ireland for example, one needs a form of formal identity, either a passport or a DRIVING LICENCE.
You don't have to do any of those things. An identity card in most peoples' minds (rightly or wrongly) is needing to prove you are who you are apropos of nothing.
The real problem with ID card proposals is the databases and linkages behind them.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
The only proposal that interests those making proposals, is the super linked database that every Tom, Dick, and Harry in officialdom can access.
Yes, ok, you think and say so. But all systems need controls. Let's see what they are in this case. You seem to be ruling out ID cards on account of some spooky insight into the minds of those proposing them.
It’s more that every time they are proposed, so far, the database bullshit is included.
It’s not paranoia to expect something to happen that has happened 5+ times before.
Is it the case that the issue is not the Card itself but the linked databases behind it?
Yes - linking everything together and making it available to every “official” violates every data protection rule and best practise I can think of. It would break data protection *law* unless specifically
A card with a number on it isn’t a particular problem.
It is worth considering that it would also be a constitutional violation in Germany and several other European states.
Let's not do it with a superlinked database that every tom dick & harry in officialdom can access without the requisite controls then.
Let's see what the proposal is (if we get one).
An issue is that nowadays it is increasingly easy (well, easier) to create superlinked databases. And that's another issue: just think what data Google or your local supermarket hold about you (if you have not been very careful).
Edit: it is why I don't like some road-charging proposals. I really don't want the government to know where I've been all the time. This government may be fine with that info, but another in a few decades? Then again, ANPR tech can do a lot of that in the background. And the data implications of Oyster cards are also worrying if you are a Londoner.
I'm not much fussed about having that sort of data - where I've travelled, what I've bought in the shops etc - on me available. We all have a hierarchy of concerns, don't we, and this one - the Surveillance Society - isn't close to the top of mine. That is not to say I'm gagging for the Surveillance Society. I'm not. On ID cards imo it comes down to assessing the benefit against the cost and the risk. If I ever see a proposal that's what I'd hope to do.
You must also though consider, to what use a future Government would put ID cards and associated databases if they were more authoritarian. I understand all the arguments about social media tracing, mobile phones and store cards but if I really wanted to I could simply choose to drop all of those if I felt they were a threat to my liberty. I could not do the same with a legally mandated ID card.
We already know how incredibly difficult it is for a normal citizen to avoid being scrutinised and traced in modern society but I don't see any point in making it any easier for the buggers.
I have few issues with ID cards. I already carry a driving licence, my Uni ID card, bank and credit cards etc. When I access the NHS they need me to prove who I am. Same for banks etc.
As long as there is no requirement to generally carry them I see no issue. Being asked to produce it to vote, for instance, or as proof of the right to work at a hand car wash, would not be that much of a hardship.
I do find it amusing how much people stress about the amount of information the government holds or might hold on them, without doing so about social media, general internet, bank history etc. I know some obsess about those too, but a lot of people are wound up by the former but not the latter.
At the end of the day lots of people see your personal details, be it the doctors receptionist or the person on the phone at the back, or the minion at the HMRC. There are laws and rules in place to protect your data. It won't always work of course, but no law is perfect, and neither is a system.
Because the state has the power to put me in prison, Instagram doesn't.
I understand that and only an idiot denies that miscarriages of justice do happen, but what crime are you expecting to have committed?
You don’t need to commit a crime, merely be fitted up for one, by organisations like the Met Police, with their long history of fitting up innocent people only ever bringing guilty suspects to justice.
“All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn’t be suspect.”
The “back lash” is not against trans people, but the activists who are promoting a “no debate” implementation that will weaken safeguards for biological women, and ignoring the serious medical complications for children (many of whom are autistic or will turn out gay) who are railroaded into a treatment pathway that will lead to a lifetime of sterility, inability to orgasm, medication and brittle bones, under the label of “affirmative care”.
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
The problem with the trans debate is that it's not any real transgender people that are the problem.
It's the fact some people with ulterior motives are "pretending" to be trans to achieve their motives and many trans people don't see the issue.
A problem with the trans debate on pb.com is that much of it is posters fulminating against something that is virtually absent from here - ie the extreme view (usually credited to the "trans lobby") that sex should disappear as a concept in society and the law and be replaced by gender.
I support making it easier to gain a Gender Recognition Certificate, eg the Scottish reforms, but I don't sign up to gender replacing sex. Also I don't argue for no single sex spaces or activities. You need to look at each area on its merits. The reason I support the reform is simply that in my view it'll make a positive difference to transgender people and won't harm anybody else.
There's a room full of people in a parliament in Scotland who are about to make law on the understanding that someone like Rivers is either male, or trans, but cannot be both. And if they decided Rivers is male, could not tell you why they don't think Rivers is trans. https://twitter.com/berkeleyscanner/status/1592673698620002305
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
Perhaps you don't see it because there isn't a parallel in the case of how you react to the issue. But what about those who truly do associate transgenderism with danger and perversion? Can you speak for them? I don't see how you can.
The people who would stone adulterers, castrate homosexuals and attack trans people have an interest in conflating all these different issues into one - as contrary to their interpretation of God's Will - and the people who would shut down any debate about trans ideology want the same for the reason of painting any critical voices as being in league with homophobic religious fundamentalists.
What relevance does that have to the rest of us?
Que? You're not talking to someone who wants to shut down debate. I'm debating.
Specifically I was just explaining why you might not see the parallel - being an assumption that other people view the issue as you do (which has no parallel to homophobia) when there are plenty out there whose anti-trans sentiments do have that parallel.
"There is no homophobic parallel in how I feel about transgender people therefore I don't see that parallel."
That was the essence of your post.
I took the essence of the OP as being that anyone critical of trans ideology was in a similar position to homophobes in the 80s and early 90s. That's what I was responding to.
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
That's real man's talk, that is. Mine's only 30". I need to up my game.
I’m so relaxed about the ‘size’ issue I couldn’t tell you how big mine is. All I can say is that it’s the largest that it’s ever been.
Mine is quite small, but I tell my wife that it looks bigger if you sit closer to it.
Our neighbour has an enormous one. I can see it through the window.
Some people can't help but show off.
If he's not careful, some rogue will catch sight of it and try to grab it while he's out shopping or at the beach or whatever, and then where would he be?
Mine is state of the art, but I keep it out of view except when I'm using it or when trusted friends pop round.
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
That's real man's talk, that is. Mine's only 30". I need to up my game.
I’m so relaxed about the ‘size’ issue I couldn’t tell you how big mine is. All I can say is that it’s the largest that it’s ever been.
Mine is at the point where I'm not sure I've got a tape measure that big.
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
That's real man's talk, that is. Mine's only 30". I need to up my game.
I’m so relaxed about the ‘size’ issue I couldn’t tell you how big mine is. All I can say is that it’s the largest that it’s ever been.
Mine is quite small, but I tell my wife that it looks bigger if you sit closer to it.
Our neighbour has an enormous one. I can see it through the window.
Some people can't help but show off.
If he's not careful, some rogue will catch sight of it and try to grab it while he's out shopping or at the beach or whatever, and then where would he be?
Mine is state of the art, but I keep it out of view except when I'm using it or when trusted friends pop round.
It's when people boast about the size of their i-phone that I begin to doubt their (or my) sanity.
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
That's real man's talk, that is. Mine's only 30". I need to up my game.
I’m so relaxed about the ‘size’ issue I couldn’t tell you how big mine is. All I can say is that it’s the largest that it’s ever been.
Mine is quite small, but I tell my wife that it looks bigger if you sit closer to it.
Our neighbour has an enormous one. I can see it through the window.
Some people can't help but show off.
If he's not careful, some rogue will catch sight of it and try to grab it while he's out shopping or at the beach or whatever, and then where would he be?
Mine is state of the art, but I keep it out of view except when I'm using it or when trusted friends pop round.
It's when people boast about the size of their i-phone that I begin to doubt their (or my) sanity.
There was a time when smaller was preferred. Nobody wanted to be seen with a huge, unsightly bulge in their trousers.
All different now, I'm afraid. I hate seeing people getting them out and playing with them on the train.
Any “shaming investigation” that starts with “U.K. Law” sounds like it hasn’t done its homework….
The New York Times has just run a shaming investigation into the UK legal principle of “joint enterprise”, under which people can be charged for crimes they were nowhere near.
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
That's real man's talk, that is. Mine's only 30". I need to up my game.
I’m so relaxed about the ‘size’ issue I couldn’t tell you how big mine is. All I can say is that it’s the largest that it’s ever been.
A friend tells me the only time he has regretted owning a 75 inch tv was when he watched home made porn on it, shot in 4K HDR on an iPhone.
The name of the band Deacon Blue in turn comes from a brilliant song by Steely Dan. Whose name In turn comes from a strap on metal dildo described by William S Burroughs in “Naked Lunch”
BritTri just emailed AG athletes about how the new transgender policy will be implemented. Seems like a very good example of best practice that other sports could do well to follow
The lack of new films has meant I am now plumbing the depths of Lyle Lyle Crocodile this afternoon.
Don't normally do PG's but feel like I should attend Cineworld before it shuts.
Black Panther yesterday I was only one in the screen shocking state of affairs. Cineworlds answer hike the price of Unlimited!!
That should help (not)
Cinemas are dead, unfortunately. I rarely see more than a handful of people except literally on opening days. Which even though that will be a busy time, is not usually heaving.
In my part of the world, the cinemas are all showing the World Cup. I’ve got a ticket to watch England v Iran in the local IMAX.
Yep - beyond events the lack of interesting films is what is driving the lack of cinema attendance.
Before black Panther last Friday - the previous film we went to see was Bullettrain and there wasn’t any trailer shown (now does IMDb) list anything interesting this side of about Easter.
Mrs Eek goes to the cinema with some friends for more female friendly films and again she’s seen nothing since Mrs Harris Goes to Paris and nothing in the near future takes their fancy
I'm seeing Glass Onion next week - very excited
I hope it is as much fun as Knives Out, but am prepared to be disappointed. No spoilers, please, as it's going to be a while before I will have the time to see it.
I just hope Dan Craig has used the time wisely to perfect his Southern Belle accent.....
I have watched that about 5 times since someone posted it up last night. Brilliant.
There was a video of him a few years ago on stage at some promo event (I think in S.Korea) and he did a really very impressive impromptu dance on stage. You could almost hear the sound of the audience members fainting in the background.
Sadly can't seem to find it now. I'm sure I didn't dream it. Fairly sure anyway...
Any “shaming investigation” that starts with “U.K. Law” sounds like it hasn’t done its homework….
The New York Times has just run a shaming investigation into the UK legal principle of “joint enterprise”, under which people can be charged for crimes they were nowhere near.
The New York Times article in question: The continued use of joint enterprise is one example of a British tough-on-crime policy that has grown increasingly strident... Many of those tactics were imported from the 1990s war on drugs in the United States. But while American officials have reconsidered many criminal justice policies over the past decade, they have become an entrenched part of British politics... the latest official statistics show that national crime levels, including homicide, are actually lower than before the pandemic began in 2020. And overall, crime has been falling for decades.
The New York Times, January 2022: In 2020, murders in the United States spiked more than 27 percent — the largest percentage increase in at least six decades. Last year, murders went up again. Those murders resulted in the deaths of thousands more Americans, and returned the U.S. to homicide rates not seen since the mid-1990s.... From 1991 to 2014, America’s murder rate plummeted by more than half.
I'm not sure it's the UK who should feel shame here - perhaps it should be those in the US who reconsidered criminal justice policies, and those who encouraged them to do so, in a way that has lead to thousands of people dying violent deaths. Or perhaps it should be Zoe Williams, who apparently gets paid by the Guardian not to bother with basic pattern recognition.
Any “shaming investigation” that starts with “U.K. Law” sounds like it hasn’t done its homework….
The New York Times has just run a shaming investigation into the UK legal principle of “joint enterprise”, under which people can be charged for crimes they were nowhere near.
The name of the band Deacon Blue in turn comes from a brilliant song by Steely Dan. Whose name In turn comes from a strap on metal dildo described by William S Burroughs in “Naked Lunch”
You'll be telling us next that Naked Lunch got their name from the book too.
The name of the band Deacon Blue in turn comes from a brilliant song by Steely Dan. Whose name In turn comes from a strap on metal dildo described by William S Burroughs in “Naked Lunch”
Well a deacon wearing one of those would be rather blue.
As for the song, the world that formed Thatcher certainly had space for humble dignified work, saving your money and pottering round in a small boat in retirement.
The forces Thatcher unleashed and rode didn't... And I wonder how much she understood what she did. Bits of her memoirs imply that she thought that accumulation of wealth would unleash civic philanthropy and it never happened on the scale it needed to.
Maybe Thatcherism needed everyone to have a provincial methodist upbringing to work. Which it didn't. Which is a pity.
Any “shaming investigation” that starts with “U.K. Law” sounds like it hasn’t done its homework….
The New York Times has just run a shaming investigation into the UK legal principle of “joint enterprise”, under which people can be charged for crimes they were nowhere near.
The New York Times article in question: The continued use of joint enterprise is one example of a British tough-on-crime policy that has grown increasingly strident... Many of those tactics were imported from the 1990s war on drugs in the United States. But while American officials have reconsidered many criminal justice policies over the past decade, they have become an entrenched part of British politics... the latest official statistics show that national crime levels, including homicide, are actually lower than before the pandemic began in 2020. And overall, crime has been falling for decades.
The New York Times, January 2022: In 2020, murders in the United States spiked more than 27 percent — the largest percentage increase in at least six decades. Last year, murders went up again. Those murders resulted in the deaths of thousands more Americans, and returned the U.S. to homicide rates not seen since the mid-1990s.... From 1991 to 2014, America’s murder rate plummeted by more than half.
I'm not sure it's the UK who should feel shame here.
Nor I. The controversy is about "Give it to him Chris, let him have it" after which a policeman was shot dead. The person convicted on this basis was not exactly "nowhere near" the crime.
The “back lash” is not against trans people, but the activists who are promoting a “no debate” implementation that will weaken safeguards for biological women, and ignoring the serious medical complications for children (many of whom are autistic or will turn out gay) who are railroaded into a treatment pathway that will lead to a lifetime of sterility, inability to orgasm, medication and brittle bones, under the label of “affirmative care”.
Any “shaming investigation” that starts with “U.K. Law” sounds like it hasn’t done its homework….
The New York Times has just run a shaming investigation into the UK legal principle of “joint enterprise”, under which people can be charged for crimes they were nowhere near.
The New York Times article in question: The continued use of joint enterprise is one example of a British tough-on-crime policy that has grown increasingly strident... Many of those tactics were imported from the 1990s war on drugs in the United States. But while American officials have reconsidered many criminal justice policies over the past decade, they have become an entrenched part of British politics... the latest official statistics show that national crime levels, including homicide, are actually lower than before the pandemic began in 2020. And overall, crime has been falling for decades.
The New York Times, January 2022: In 2020, murders in the United States spiked more than 27 percent — the largest percentage increase in at least six decades. Last year, murders went up again. Those murders resulted in the deaths of thousands more Americans, and returned the U.S. to homicide rates not seen since the mid-1990s.... From 1991 to 2014, America’s murder rate plummeted by more than half.
I'm not sure it's the UK who should feel shame here.
Nor I. The controversy is about "Give it to him Chris, let him have it" after which a policeman was shot dead. The person convicted on this basis was not exactly "nowhere near" the crime.
Or a religious fundamentalist egging on a fanatic to commit an act of terrorism without necessarily inciting violence directly.
Didn't Big Dom Cummings say something similar about special advisers and the like?
The immediate and obvious difference being that I doubt any of the Special Advisors and such like were actually employees. If you are a contractor then generally you can be dumped on the spot with no recourse outside what is specifically written in your contract. I suspect most of those being fired by Musk are employees which will make a world of difference.
I was thinking more the entreaty to be hardcore. I have a recollection he was after weird geniuses or something.
Cummings has cited Musk's approach at Twitter as being an example to follow for public services (lol).
I can't say I am a big fan of Elon Musk but I think what he is doing is ultimately fair given that he has spent 44 billion or whatever buying a business which has never really made any money. The people leaving Twitter are going to find lots of other opportunities where they will prefer the culture as they are highly skilled. Musk cannot carry around a bloated zombie corporate structure that is resistant to his legitimate objectives for the business. But having said all that, I would definitely not want to work there, and it might turn out to be the case that he struggles to find people willing to do so, given the nature of what Twitter does, it is different to Tesla and attracts different people.
It made 1.4 billion dollars profit off of 3.4 billion revenue in 2019! That's not a marginal business.
Any “shaming investigation” that starts with “U.K. Law” sounds like it hasn’t done its homework….
The New York Times has just run a shaming investigation into the UK legal principle of “joint enterprise”, under which people can be charged for crimes they were nowhere near.
Article also points out the dystopian "Felony Murder" rule
In one case, in 2019 in Phoenix, police officers pulled over a car because they suspected the four occupants of committing a robbery. When one of them fled, the police shot him dead. The three others were charged with murder, while the police were not held accountable.
That "right to leave" is strikingly similar to about the size of the Tory core vote they're falling back on.
As a result of that, if I was Starmer I would be thinking very carefully about not having a referendum on SM membership. He's probably going to have to do it at some point I think, not least for economic reasons. The strapline will have to be something like : "this time we're being honest with you, unlike the unicorns of the more extreme Brexiters, and the confused prospectus before. Let's be honest about this : Do you want more European immigrants, to get our economic growth back ?"
The “back lash” is not against trans people, but the activists who are promoting a “no debate” implementation that will weaken safeguards for biological women, and ignoring the serious medical complications for children (many of whom are autistic or will turn out gay) who are railroaded into a treatment pathway that will lead to a lifetime of sterility, inability to orgasm, medication and brittle bones, under the label of “affirmative care”.
Any “shaming investigation” that starts with “U.K. Law” sounds like it hasn’t done its homework….
The New York Times has just run a shaming investigation into the UK legal principle of “joint enterprise”, under which people can be charged for crimes they were nowhere near.
Can't read the NYT article and the Grauniad doesn't help much. But the worst offender is often the person who is nowhere near the scene. The guy who orders the killing is usually worse than the killer who carries it out. The armourer is complicit in the killing his gun performs and so on.
The UK SC ruled not long ago on joint enterprise (R v Jogee) and brought the law rationally up to date.
It's not terribly important, but in US elections, the word "nominee" is usually reserved for those who win the nomination of their party. But you got it straight later by calling Trump a "candidate".
Didn't Big Dom Cummings say something similar about special advisers and the like?
The immediate and obvious difference being that I doubt any of the Special Advisors and such like were actually employees. If you are a contractor then generally you can be dumped on the spot with no recourse outside what is specifically written in your contract. I suspect most of those being fired by Musk are employees which will make a world of difference.
I was thinking more the entreaty to be hardcore. I have a recollection he was after weird geniuses or something.
Cummings has cited Musk's approach at Twitter as being an example to follow for public services (lol).
I can't say I am a big fan of Elon Musk but I think what he is doing is ultimately fair given that he has spent 44 billion or whatever buying a business which has never really made any money. The people leaving Twitter are going to find lots of other opportunities where they will prefer the culture as they are highly skilled. Musk cannot carry around a bloated zombie corporate structure that is resistant to his legitimate objectives for the business. But having said all that, I would definitely not want to work there, and it might turn out to be the case that he struggles to find people willing to do so, given the nature of what Twitter does, it is different to Tesla and attracts different people.
It seems like a strange way of looking at the world to me.
According to Cummings, Twitter didn't have the virtue of making a lot of money (though obviously it provided a service that was popular because people found it useful).
Therefore, apparently, it makes sense to spend a huge amount of money buying it, and then because in his eyes it's not profitable enough, to wreck it on the off-chance that it might make it profitable rather than just destroying it?
It sounds like anything but a sensible approach to public services, because it's based on a total incomprehension of the concept of a "service" as opposed to a means of squeezing as much money as possible out of people for your own benefit!
My wife and I don't go to the cinema very much any more. My 83" OLED is better than most cinema projector/screen combos, we can conveniently watch what we want after Jen has gone to bed, we have the Sony streaming service which has got loads of amazing premium movies on it available in best quality 4K along with Netflix and Disney+ which have Dolby Vision and Dolby Atmos. We stuck Dune in 4K Blu Ray on it a few nights ago and it was absolutely incredible. Having a proper cinema screen really does make a big difference though, I think people don't realise that and end up with a 55" instead of a 65" or 65" instead of 75" etc...
My dad has been inspired and is resolved to replace their 46" old TV with a 75" OLED, my mum doesn't seem in favour of the idea lol.
That's real man's talk, that is. Mine's only 30". I need to up my game.
I’m so relaxed about the ‘size’ issue I couldn’t tell you how big mine is. All I can say is that it’s the largest that it’s ever been.
Mine is at the point where I'm not sure I've got a tape measure that big.
I have quite a small one. Certainly most are bigger these days. Keep meaning to do something about it but both me and my wife have kind of got used to it. So no rush.
Smaller lead, but mostly about 50-35 for rejoin. There are a bazillion reasons why that's not enough to enact as a policy, but in the way that's not the point.
The UK has a core policy that a lot of people never bought into in the first place, and even more of the population now think was a mistake but can't be reversed quickly. And a lot of people don't want to talk about ameliorating the problems for fear of provoking Mad Uncle Nigel.
Whatever the objective rights and wrongs, that's not a happy place for a country to be.
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Unfortunately the matter is a more than one stage argument, things which never do well with the good old general public who have better things to think about. This is especially true on questions where there are upsides and downsides to all possible outcomes, something which neither voters nor politicians like being upfront about.
Question one: Was it right to leave the EU
Question two: Is the way we left it the best solution to the problem of how to leave
Edward Leigh wants identity cards. Incoming vanity by election for Haltemprice and Howden.
I'd rather have unlimited migration than identity cards.
I already have one that I have to carry every day. It is called a driving license.
Huh?
When Mr Plod stops me in my car, he asks for my driving licence. If I don't have it, I am asked to produce it at a later date, despite all the information being available on the database in front of him, on receipt of my name and date of birth. All this information can be cross referenced against other documents such as my passport. Identity cards are already in place for the law abiding. For those who shouldn't be here, not so much.
But if you're not driving you don't have to carry it or show it to him or anything.
If you are driving then yes the police have that power.
It is still an identity card that most of us already have to carry. I have no problem with another one, it does not affect my personal liberty in the same way my driving licence doesn't. It might affect my liberty if I was a Kurd working in a car wash.
Not the point. It is your choice to have a car or not. If you don't want to have a car then there are not many ways, short of an abuse of the Terrorism Act that the police can search you and fewer ways (eg PACE or indeed arrest) that they can force you to disclose your identity.
It's interesting how people who never care about illegal immigration suddenly think it's very important when it comes to the ID card debate. That just shows its the desire for ID cards that motivates them rather than the supposed underlying argument.
But WHY do these people want ID cards iyo? They must be a reason surely. Nobody wants an ID card just to say they have an ID card.
I recall wanting an ID card from when I was 18 to about when I was 22 - to avoid taking my passport to a pub that didn’t know me.
The ID card itself isn’t the problem, the problems are the database behind it, and scope creep from both public and private sectors. I’ve lived in two countries with ID cards, and witnessed this first hand.
The civil service love the idea though, and every new Home Secretary gets the briefing about how ID cards will end terrorism and racism, during their first week in office.
I've also lived in two countries with ID cards (Switzerland and Denmark) and they are AFAIK entirely uncontroversial there. The British system of producing bank statements and utility bills is just ridiculous hassle for all kinds of things from signing rental agreements to getting credit.
If people are worried about ancillary mission creep issues, then by all means limit it just to identity and anything else that everyone regards as uncontroversial, e.g. blood group.
Yepp.
ID cards are a total non-issue in Sweden. They make life super dooper easy and are thus popular and used universally for all kinds of purposes. Eg I log in to many websites with Bank ID, which is based on my personal identification number. Apple Pay is also dependent on my Bank ID. Needless to say, its use in the public sector is universal.
Our daughter couldn’t believe it when folk asked her to produce utility bills when she moved to London then Edinburgh. It is mind-bogglingly old fashioned from a Nordic perspective.
You have to do it in Spain even though we have id cards as well!
Also, if the only criticism is it is old fashioned, that's not a lot to go on to introduce some expensive new system.
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Unfortunately the matter is a more than one stage argument, things which never do well with the good old general public who have better things to think about. This is especially true on questions where there are upsides and downsides to all possible outcomes, something which neither voters nor politicians like being upfront about.
Question one: Was it right to leave the EU
Question two: Is the way we left it the best solution to the problem of how to leave
etc.
Indeed, ask them if they want to rejoin the EU plus the Eurozone and you would get a slightly different answer. Even ask them if they want to rejoin the EEA only and restore free movement and you would get a different answer to a slightly more aligned trading relationship with the EU than now
Since you are discussing "trans" issues, let me add this small fact: Amazon refuses to sell "When Harry Became Sally", a book arguing that trying to change one's sex is often bad for the person attempting it. They do sell Abigail Shrier's "Irreversible Damage", which makes a similar argument about girls, but rejected on-site ads for that book.
(Full disclosure: I bought a copy of the first from B&N, but haven't gotten around to reading it. And have mostly stopped buying books from the giant retailer.)
Just checking - I know people never like to admit they're wrong, but is anyone still suggesting we should start World War Three because of the incident yesterday in Poland?
I've just been watching "Freddie Mercury: the final act" detailing Freddie Mercury's battle with AIDS and the concerts that came before and after his death. It also details some 'ordinary' people who got AIDS at the same time, a couple of whom were lucky enough to survive - and who recall many who did not.
It covers my teenage years, a period when I discovered girls and started university. I had a couple of gay friends at school (one openly gay), and knew many when I moved to uni in London in 1991. Homophobia was absolutely rife, to a degree that shocks me now. With hindsight I find some of my own attitude questionable as well.
I know this is an unpopular view, but I see the same thing with the anti-trans backlash as there was with homosexuality back then. They're a danger; they're different; they upset me.
I think society will move on and accept that many people are different to us. And that it doesn't matter.
The odd thing is that one of those gay (actually bi) friends at school and uni was trans, and that seemed to be more acceptable than homosexuality was - at least at uni. Anecdata and with hindsight, obviously.
People being trans does not bother me. What bothers me is one thing. It's the absolutist ideology that essentially states that gender stereotypes are more important than biology.
This has two consequences. Firstly, it challenges my identity as a man who does not conform to many male gender stereotypes. Secondly, it leads to safeguarding issues where people with male bodies are placed in what should be female-only spaces (such as prisons or hospital wards) putting females at increased risk of sexual assault.
I don't see the parallel with homophobia.
Perhaps you don't see it because there isn't a parallel in the case of how you react to the issue. But what about those who truly do associate transgenderism with danger and perversion? Can you speak for them? I don't see how you can.
The people who would stone adulterers, castrate homosexuals and attack trans people have an interest in conflating all these different issues into one - as contrary to their interpretation of God's Will - and the people who would shut down any debate about trans ideology want the same for the reason of painting any critical voices as being in league with homophobic religious fundamentalists.
What relevance does that have to the rest of us?
Que? You're not talking to someone who wants to shut down debate. I'm debating.
Specifically I was just explaining why you might not see the parallel - being an assumption that other people view the issue as you do (which has no parallel to homophobia) when there are plenty out there whose anti-trans sentiments do have that parallel.
"There is no homophobic parallel in how I feel about transgender people therefore I don't see that parallel."
That was the essence of your post.
I took the essence of the OP as being that anyone critical of trans ideology was in a similar position to homophobes in the 80s and early 90s. That's what I was responding to.
Ah ok. Well that would be wrong and unfair. I do see similarities but it doesn't follow that you can throw that accusation at individuals just because they are "gender critical" or whatever. Depends on the sentiment that's driving them.
Just checking - I know people never like to admit they're wrong, but is anyone still suggesting we should start World War Three because of the incident yesterday in Poland?
Pretty sure anyone suggesting full blown war still qualified things with 'if' Russia was indeed responsible. So they probably wouldn't need to say they were wrong at all, unless they accepted even a Russian mistake would not be a casus belli for all out WW3.
Am on the move, so having to comment via the annoying car wreck of Vanilla on mobile - but re. cinema
For decades it’s been portrayed as a dying medium. Up to Covid, it definitely was not. Actual attendances (and revenues with it) have increased year on year from 2000-2019.
Since then, tougher times. But - and this is interesting - it is a young person’s medium. It is the youth who are back in the seats from 2020 onwards. It absolutely retains a place as a great way to experience stories (and Marshall McLuhan’s original ‘hot media’ in terms of focus and immersion).
Fratellis disappointing in Plymouth last night, 40 minute set which felt like the Yes Sir I Can Boogie tour. But nice to hear Whistle for the Choir live.
On the plus side the Sherlocks (v young Sheffield band) were fantastic
And golly music sounds better in proper masonry buildings vs tents and stadiums.
Any “shaming investigation” that starts with “U.K. Law” sounds like it hasn’t done its homework….
The New York Times has just run a shaming investigation into the UK legal principle of “joint enterprise”, under which people can be charged for crimes they were nowhere near.
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Unfortunately the matter is a more than one stage argument, things which never do well with the good old general public who have better things to think about. This is especially true on questions where there are upsides and downsides to all possible outcomes, something which neither voters nor politicians like being upfront about.
Question one: Was it right to leave the EU
Question two: Is the way we left it the best solution to the problem of how to leave
etc.
One problem is that what's left of the continuity Remain campaign is still focusing on pushing an anti-Brexit rather than pro-EU message.
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
It's a pointless question though. A better question is should the UK apply to rejoin the EU.
We rejoin. We experience similar challenges on uneven and weak growth, high EU migration and some new ones on political union. And new EU regulations coming in we don't like. Everyone is frustrated. 5 years later there's a poll:
In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to re-join the European Union?
Right to Rejoin: 34% (-12) Wrong to Rejoin: 54% (+10)
The existing Brexit settlement clearly isn't politically sustainable as-is but neither is it as simple as going back to square one and pretending that it'd fix everything and the issues that led us to leave were never really there.
Smaller lead, but mostly about 50-35 for rejoin. There are a bazillion reasons why that's not enough to enact as a policy, but in the way that's not the point.
The UK has a core policy that a lot of people never bought into in the first place, and even more of the population now think was a mistake but can't be reversed quickly. And a lot of people don't want to talk about ameliorating the problems for fear of provoking Mad Uncle Nigel.
Whatever the objective rights and wrongs, that's not a happy place for a country to be.
Of course there is such polling. It's sort of meaningless as there's no idea as to what rejoining might mean, but good for the general flavour.
Farage has nothing to apologise for. He did what he thought was right and very effecively so. What he can do though is stand as an example of what endeavour can yield.
Just checking - I know people never like to admit they're wrong, but is anyone still suggesting we should start World War Three because of the incident yesterday in Poland?
Pretty sure anyone suggesting full blown war still qualified things with 'if' Russia was indeed responsible. So they probably wouldn't need to say they were wrong at all, unless they accepted even a Russian mistake would not be a casus belli for all out WW3.
Presumably you missed comments like this one (in response to a suggestion that it may not have been an intentional Russian attack): "Bollocks to that. We should use it as a pretext to destroy every Russian plane, tank, barrel and soldier on Ukrainian sovereign territory and have done with this thing. "
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Good for you posting it. It does raise a number of unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions, but it’s hardly ‘pointless’ asking the electorate if they feel it was all a mistake.
Just checking - I know people never like to admit they're wrong, but is anyone still suggesting we should start World War Three because of the incident yesterday in Poland?
The logic of some of yesterday's posts is that NATO should now declare war on Ukraine. Essentially it was always clearly an accident that didn't justify escalation by anyone, and the fact that it now seems to have been a Ukrainian accident doesn't change that. When we ponder Western policy from our armchairs, it's worth keeping in mind that accidents do occur in conflict and not every opportunity to ramp the conflict up should be seized.
Zelensky has made a rare PR mistake in arguing the toss with NATO about this - he'd be much better-advised to take the Polish line that it was an unfortunate incident but really Russia's fault because if they weren't firing missiles then Ukraine wouldn't be firing back. In general he seems less sure-footed than usual, with the line on whether he's willing to negotiate also varying from day to day - the current version seems to be "yes but only in public", which sounds more rhetorical than serious.
Just checking - I know people never like to admit they're wrong, but is anyone still suggesting we should start World War Three because of the incident yesterday in Poland?
Pretty sure anyone suggesting full blown war still qualified things with 'if' Russia was indeed responsible. So they probably wouldn't need to say they were wrong at all, unless they accepted even a Russian mistake would not be a casus belli for all out WW3.
Presumably you missed comments like this one (in response to a suggestion that it may not have been an intentional Russian attack): "Bollocks to that. We should use it as a pretext to destroy every Russian plane, tank, barrel and soldier on Ukrainian sovereign territory and have done with this thing. "
I grant that one is a tad unreasonable. But not many were that full throttle without any wiggle room.
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Good for you posting it. It does raise a number of unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions, but it’s hardly ‘pointless’ asking the electorate if they feel it was all a mistake.
Any “shaming investigation” that starts with “U.K. Law” sounds like it hasn’t done its homework….
The New York Times has just run a shaming investigation into the UK legal principle of “joint enterprise”, under which people can be charged for crimes they were nowhere near.
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Unfortunately the matter is a more than one stage argument, things which never do well with the good old general public who have better things to think about. This is especially true on questions where there are upsides and downsides to all possible outcomes, something which neither voters nor politicians like being upfront about.
Question one: Was it right to leave the EU
Question two: Is the way we left it the best solution to the problem of how to leave
etc.
One problem is that what's left of the continuity Remain campaign is still focusing on pushing an anti-Brexit rather than pro-EU message.
https://twitter.com/troy_senik/status/1592736628883492864 Seeing as this the one moment where being a Grover Cleveland biographer has any social utility, let me save you all a lot of Googling: Cleveland and Trump are starkly dissimilar figures…
… One detail underscores the contrast better than any other. When Cleveland lost the 1888 election, some of his supporters suggested the election had been stolen from him. This was not implausible, as there was real electoral chicanery afoot in those days…
… though it’s very unlikely it actually affected the outcome.
But when Cleveland was asked why he thought he had lost, he simply replied, “It was mainly because the other party had the most votes.”
Just checking - I know people never like to admit they're wrong, but is anyone still suggesting we should start World War Three because of the incident yesterday in Poland?
Pretty sure anyone suggesting full blown war still qualified things with 'if' Russia was indeed responsible. So they probably wouldn't need to say they were wrong at all, unless they accepted even a Russian mistake would not be a casus belli for all out WW3.
Presumably you missed comments like this one (in response to a suggestion that it may not have been an intentional Russian attack): "Bollocks to that. We should use it as a pretext to destroy every Russian plane, tank, barrel and soldier on Ukrainian sovereign territory and have done with this thing. "
I grant that one is a tad unreasonable. But not many were that full throttle without any wiggle room.
I didn't say many were. I just asked if anyone still was!
Just checking - I know people never like to admit they're wrong, but is anyone still suggesting we should start World War Three because of the incident yesterday in Poland?
I think the main thing we have learned is not to be naive about Russia, we should work on the assumption that it is just trying to buy itself time to rearm itself to try and attack Ukraine again. So the first principle is that any 'peace deal' should involve guarantees that enable Ukraine to defend itself against future attacks from Russia. Otherwise we are just being taken for fools.
Since you are discussing "trans" issues, let me add this small fact: Amazon refuses to sell "When Harry Became Sally", a book arguing that trying to change one's sex is often bad for the person attempting it. They do sell Abigail Shrier's "Irreversible Damage", which makes a similar argument about girls, but rejected on-site ads for that book.
(Full disclosure: I bought a copy of the first from B&N, but haven't gotten around to reading it. And have mostly stopped buying books from the giant retailer.)
He may have been ahead of the curve - his principal beef was with “affirmative care” (drugs & surgery) for children.
Mixed bag of local by-elections tomorrow. There are Con defences in Blackburn and Blackpool; Lab defences in Bolsover, Glasgow, Oldham, and Rhondda; Ind defence in Shetland; Green defence in Suffolk.
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
Good for you posting it. It does raise a number of unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions, but it’s hardly ‘pointless’ asking the electorate if they feel it was all a mistake.
Go on then - what is the point?
The utility of making public opinion… public ought to be obvious. Or would you prefer our leaders to press on regardless, making policy on the basis of their gut feeling about what we all think ?
Comments
Our neighbour has an enormous one. I can see it through the window.
A non-driving license Driving License ( It’s more that every time they are proposed, so far, the database bullshit is included.
It’s not paranoia to expect something to happen that has happened 5+ times before. “All suspects are guilty. Otherwise they wouldn’t be suspect.”
Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill drives a coach and horses through it:
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/scotland-identity-laundering/
The “back lash” is not against trans people, but the activists who are promoting a “no debate” implementation that will weaken safeguards for biological women, and ignoring the serious medical complications for children (many of whom are autistic or will turn out gay) who are railroaded into a treatment pathway that will lead to a lifetime of sterility, inability to orgasm, medication and brittle bones, under the label of “affirmative care”.
People like this: [VIDEO]:
https://twitter.com/DGClarke1/status/1592842974924533760?s=20&t=1K-_Uy5E1ZynI-wLCl_zqQ
And reading Maynard Keynes
And I'm thinking about home and all that that means
Never knew his name cropped up in a pop song. They obviously didn't realise his name was meant to rhyme with James not beans.
BTW, this is fabulous, as are all the other episode
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06bn23m
If he's not careful, some rogue will catch sight of it and try to grab it while he's out shopping or at the beach or whatever, and then where would he be?
Mine is state of the art, but I keep it out of view except when I'm using it or when trusted friends pop round.
Dolatowski has been transferred to the female estate at Cornton Vale after attacking a male prisoner in the male estate at Polmont.
https://twitter.com/NoXYinXXprisons/status/1592889224944005120
I mean, it's a good song, and have no idea if that in any way reflects the intention. It's just always hit my ear that way.
All different now, I'm afraid. I hate seeing people getting them out and playing with them on the train.
The New York Times has just run a shaming investigation into the UK legal principle of “joint enterprise”, under which people can be charged for crimes they were nowhere near.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/15/uk-joint-enterprise-convictions-injustice-supreme-court-racially-biased
Does the guy actually do it, or just dream about it?
https://twitter.com/SpiderJ/status/1592874945256001536
Sadly can't seem to find it now. I'm sure I didn't dream it. Fairly sure anyway...
The New York Times, January 2022: In 2020, murders in the United States spiked more than 27 percent — the largest percentage increase in at least six decades. Last year, murders went up again. Those murders resulted in the deaths of thousands more Americans, and returned the U.S. to homicide rates not seen since the mid-1990s.... From 1991 to 2014, America’s murder rate plummeted by more than half.
I'm not sure it's the UK who should feel shame here - perhaps it should be those in the US who reconsidered criminal justice policies, and those who encouraged them to do so, in a way that has lead to thousands of people dying violent deaths. Or perhaps it should be Zoe Williams, who apparently gets paid by the Guardian not to bother with basic pattern recognition.
As for the song, the world that formed Thatcher certainly had space for humble dignified work, saving your money and pottering round in a small boat in retirement.
The forces Thatcher unleashed and rode didn't... And I wonder how much she understood what she did. Bits of her memoirs imply that she thought that accumulation of wealth would unleash civic philanthropy and it never happened on the scale it needed to.
Maybe Thatcherism needed everyone to have a provincial methodist upbringing to work. Which it didn't. Which is a pity.
I know the binary thing seems like an attempt at a joke, but it isn't.
In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?
Right to Leave: 32% (-3)
Wrong to Leave: 56% (+4)
Via @YouGov, 9-10 Nov.
Changes w/ 1-2 Nov.
Largest EVER lead for 'Wrong to Leave' (polled since Aug 2016).
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/16/us/fanta-bility-police-shooting.html
Article also points out the dystopian "Felony Murder" rule
As a result of that, if I was Starmer I would be thinking very carefully about not having a referendum on SM membership. He's probably going to have to do it at some point I think, not least for economic reasons. The strapline will have to be something like : "this time we're being honest with you, unlike the unicorns of the more extreme Brexiters, and the confused prospectus before. Let's be honest about this : Do you want more European immigrants, to get our economic growth back ?"
Trans rights are human rights (who says otherwise, they just don’t get to trample biological women’s rights)
Trans women are women
Rather depends on what you mean. Socially? Fine. Biologically? No.
The UK SC ruled not long ago on joint enterprise (R v Jogee) and brought the law rationally up to date.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0015-judgment.pdf
I did a few gigs with the band that begat them before they really took off.
Rickie's early solo work is pretty good too
According to Cummings, Twitter didn't have the virtue of making a lot of money (though obviously it provided a service that was popular because people found it useful).
Therefore, apparently, it makes sense to spend a huge amount of money buying it, and then because in his eyes it's not profitable enough, to wreck it on the off-chance that it might make it profitable rather than just destroying it?
It sounds like anything but a sensible approach to public services, because it's based on a total incomprehension of the concept of a "service" as opposed to a means of squeezing as much money as possible out of people for your own benefit!
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/should-the-united-kingdom-join-the-european-union-or-stay-out-of-the-european-union/
Smaller lead, but mostly about 50-35 for rejoin. There are a bazillion reasons why that's not enough to enact as a policy, but in the way that's not the point.
The UK has a core policy that a lot of people never bought into in the first place, and even more of the population now think was a mistake but can't be reversed quickly. And a lot of people don't want to talk about ameliorating the problems for fear of provoking Mad Uncle Nigel.
Whatever the objective rights and wrongs, that's not a happy place for a country to be.
Question one: Was it right to leave the EU
Question two: Is the way we left it the best solution to the problem of how to leave
etc.
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,wings-over-scotlands-twitter-account-suspended-just-days-after-being-reinstated
(Full disclosure: I bought a copy of the first from B&N, but haven't gotten around to reading it. And have mostly stopped buying books from the giant retailer.)
"I received signals that Putin wants direct negotiations," he said. "I proposed a public forum because Russia is waging a public war."
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1592931503025295360
For decades it’s been portrayed as a dying medium. Up to Covid, it definitely was not. Actual attendances (and revenues with it) have increased year on year from 2000-2019.
Since then, tougher times. But - and this is interesting - it is a young person’s medium. It is the youth who are back in the seats from 2020 onwards. It absolutely retains a place as a great way to experience stories (and Marshall McLuhan’s original ‘hot media’ in terms of focus and immersion).
Like radio, writing off cinema is a mug’s game.
On the plus side the Sherlocks (v young Sheffield band) were fantastic
And golly music sounds better in proper masonry buildings vs tents and stadiums.
In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to re-join the European Union?
Right to Rejoin: 34% (-12)
Wrong to Rejoin: 54% (+10)
Via @YouGov, 9-10 Nov, 2034.
The existing Brexit settlement clearly isn't politically sustainable as-is but neither is it as simple as going back to square one and pretending that it'd fix everything and the issues that led us to leave were never really there.
London
Lab 55%
Con 17%
LD 11%
Grn 8%
Ref 7%
Rest of South
Lab 40%
Con 33%
LD 15%
Grn 5%
Ref 5%
Midlands and Wales
Lab 51%
Con 25%
Ref 7%
LD 7%
Grn 4%
PC 3%
North
Lab 61%
Con 20%
Ref 5%
LD 5%
Grn 4%
Scotland
SNP 44%
Lab 27%
Con 16%
LD 6%
Grn 3%
Ref 2%
(YouGov / The Times; Sample Size: 1708; Fieldwork: 9th - 10th November 2022)
Farage has nothing to apologise for. He did what he thought was right and very effecively so. What he can do though is stand as an example of what endeavour can yield.
"Bollocks to that. We should use it as a pretext to destroy every Russian plane, tank, barrel and soldier on Ukrainian sovereign territory and have done with this thing. "
It does raise a number of unanswered, and possibly unanswerable questions, but it’s hardly ‘pointless’ asking the electorate if they feel it was all a mistake.
Zelensky has made a rare PR mistake in arguing the toss with NATO about this - he'd be much better-advised to take the Polish line that it was an unfortunate incident but really Russia's fault because if they weren't firing missiles then Ukraine wouldn't be firing back. In general he seems less sure-footed than usual, with the line on whether he's willing to negotiate also varying from day to day - the current version seems to be "yes but only in public", which sounds more rhetorical than serious.
https://twitter.com/troy_senik/status/1592736628883492864
Seeing as this the one moment where being a Grover Cleveland biographer has any social utility, let me save you all a lot of Googling: Cleveland and Trump are starkly dissimilar figures…
… One detail underscores the contrast better than any other. When Cleveland lost the 1888 election, some of his supporters suggested the election had been stolen from him. This was not implausible, as there was real electoral chicanery afoot in those days…
… though it’s very unlikely it actually affected the outcome.
But when Cleveland was asked why he thought he had lost, he simply replied, “It was mainly because the other party had the most votes.”
He should be on here.
I think it’s fairly safe to conclude: the honeymoon was a micropenis event.
In Scotland a swing from SNP as well as Scons to SLAB since 2019
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2021/03/19/amazon-pulls-controversial-book-transgender-ryan-anderson-column/4635062001/
https://twitter.com/nathanbenaich/status/1592564291806584832
I'm allergic to this reflex of saying "we have to adjust our expectations because we're basically worse off/have less than the US". This seems far too common in Europe/UK.
We should instead say "what can we do to be #1? how can we be better than the US?"
Baxter gives:
SNP 52 seats (+4)
SLab 3 seats (+2)
SLD 1 seat (-1)
SCon 1 seat (-5)
Smithson has better ride quality.
Or would you prefer our leaders to press on regardless, making policy on the basis of their gut feeling about what we all think ?