Andrew Neil on Trump: ..it does look as if Trump’s days are numbered. Republicans outside his cult core are tiring of his schtick. His status as a loser is becoming more imprinted on Republican minds. A few brave party voices are now attacking him openly. More will follow as he strays into even wilder territory to keep his face on the news channels. There is a growing desire simply to move on.
The wider benefits would be historic. If Trump is not the Republican candidate, the pressure on President Biden not to run again would be irresistible. So Trump’s departure from the scene would herald a much-needed and overdue generational shift in American politics, on the Left and Right, both wings for too long dominated by the Trump-Biden generation.
Far from being the Comeback Kid, Trump would be relegated to Yesterday’s Man. He won’t like that. But it would give him more time to deal with all the lawsuits and investigations currently pressing in on him.
Yet Biden beats De Santis 42% to 40% with RedfieldWilton but ties Trump 41% each
Only Trump keeps the MAGA cult fully on board, but he repels other voters. We've seen the same effect (to for less grisly reasons) with BoJo for the Conservatives.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
Yoons: the only path for Scotland to have another referendum on membership of this voluntary as anything Union is consistent polling in favour of indy.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
Not on their Twitter feed. They have the one from 23rd November showing 50% support for the SNP instead. What is your source?
Incidentally I note you were unable to source your claims about vaccination rates.
It's on Wiki.
Then what’s the source? Saying ‘it’s on Wiki’ and leaving it at that does not address the question. It would be like saying ‘Richard III never murdered his nephews’ and linking to an article edited by Johanna Haminga.
If it’s in Wikipedia it should have a source. If there is no source, perhaps it’s like the rest of Stuart’s output that is, made up.
There is a source, on Wiki. If that's not good enough, you'll have to lay out the the ydoethur 12 factor verification threshold just so we know in advance.
Finally, a source, and a load of silly abuse for daring to ask for it despite the fact the initial poster has demonstrated he is a habitual liar and Wikipedia is infamously untrustworthy. The latter par for the course from the current Nationalist movement, sadly. The former anything but, so we make incremental progress.
I am puzzled however as to why it’s only available on the Twitter feed of a different organisation from the pollsters with no tables and nothing to say who commissioned it. Will be interesting to see that data which will presumably be coming through today.
‘A load of silly abuse’? You appear not to have put on several layers of skin this morning.
Andrew Neil on Trump: ..it does look as if Trump’s days are numbered. Republicans outside his cult core are tiring of his schtick. His status as a loser is becoming more imprinted on Republican minds. A few brave party voices are now attacking him openly. More will follow as he strays into even wilder territory to keep his face on the news channels. There is a growing desire simply to move on.
The wider benefits would be historic. If Trump is not the Republican candidate, the pressure on President Biden not to run again would be irresistible. So Trump’s departure from the scene would herald a much-needed and overdue generational shift in American politics, on the Left and Right, both wings for too long dominated by the Trump-Biden generation.
Far from being the Comeback Kid, Trump would be relegated to Yesterday’s Man. He won’t like that. But it would give him more time to deal with all the lawsuits and investigations currently pressing in on him.
Yet Biden beats De Santis 42% to 40% with RedfieldWilton but ties Trump 41% each
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
Not on their Twitter feed. They have the one from 23rd November showing 50% support for the SNP instead. What is your source?
Incidentally I note you were unable to source your claims about vaccination rates.
It's on Wiki.
Then what’s the source? Saying ‘it’s on Wiki’ and leaving it at that does not address the question. It would be like saying ‘Richard III never murdered his nephews’ and linking to an article edited by Johanna Haminga.
If it’s in Wikipedia it should have a source. If there is no source, perhaps it’s like the rest of Stuart’s output that is, made up.
There is a source, on Wiki. If that's not good enough, you'll have to lay out the the ydoethur 12 factor verification threshold just so we know in advance.
Finally, a source, and a load of silly abuse for daring to ask for it despite the fact the initial poster has demonstrated he is a habitual liar and Wikipedia is infamously untrustworthy. The latter par for the course from the current Nationalist movement, sadly. The former anything but, so we make incremental progress.
I am puzzled however as to why it’s only available on the Twitter feed of a different organisation from the pollsters with no tables and nothing to say who commissioned it. Will be interesting to see that data which will presumably be coming through today.
‘A load of silly abuse’? You appear not to have put on several layers of skin this morning.
By all means read your own post back.
However, thank you for finally providing the source, with a bit of prompting. After all, it is what I asked for. As I said, interesting to see what it was and I will be intrigued to see more details which surely will be emerging over the next day or two.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
Andrew Neil on Trump: ..it does look as if Trump’s days are numbered. Republicans outside his cult core are tiring of his schtick. His status as a loser is becoming more imprinted on Republican minds. A few brave party voices are now attacking him openly. More will follow as he strays into even wilder territory to keep his face on the news channels. There is a growing desire simply to move on.
The wider benefits would be historic. If Trump is not the Republican candidate, the pressure on President Biden not to run again would be irresistible. So Trump’s departure from the scene would herald a much-needed and overdue generational shift in American politics, on the Left and Right, both wings for too long dominated by the Trump-Biden generation.
Far from being the Comeback Kid, Trump would be relegated to Yesterday’s Man. He won’t like that. But it would give him more time to deal with all the lawsuits and investigations currently pressing in on him.
Trump slams trade with Russia, saying, "Why wasn’t former Marine Paul Whelan included in this totally one-sided transaction? He would have been let out for the asking." Begging the question then of why Trump didn't free Whelan, who was imprisoned in 2018 during Trump's presidency https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1601003241516343298
Former President Trump appears to have mentioned my brother #PaulWhelan's wrongful detention more in the last 24 hours than he did in the 2 years of his presidency in which Paul was held hostage by #Russia (zero). I don't suggest he cares now any more than he did then (zero) https://twitter.com/davidpwhelan/status/1601219405744328706
John Kerry, the US climate official, has said he is closely examining the UK government’s approval of a new coalmine, over concerns that it will raise greenhouse gas emissions and send the wrong signal to developing countries.
“Coal is not exactly the direction that the world is trying to move in, or needs to move in. What I want to know is the level of abatement here [such as whether the resulting greenhouse gases will be captured and stored] and the comparison of this particular process in the production of steel,” he said.
I like John Kerry, but he looks utterly ridiculous. Quite simply, Americans have a vested interest in stopping that coal mine.
Plus we would just be importing it from abroad for our steel industry otherwise anyway
John Kerry, the US climate official, has said he is closely examining the UK government’s approval of a new coalmine, over concerns that it will raise greenhouse gas emissions and send the wrong signal to developing countries.
“Coal is not exactly the direction that the world is trying to move in, or needs to move in. What I want to know is the level of abatement here [such as whether the resulting greenhouse gases will be captured and stored] and the comparison of this particular process in the production of steel,” he said.
I like John Kerry, but he looks utterly ridiculous. Quite simply, Americans have a vested interest in stopping that coal mine.
Plus we would just be importing it from abroad for our steel industry otherwise anyway
We will continue to do so, irrespective of the mine.
John Kerry, the US climate official, has said he is closely examining the UK government’s approval of a new coalmine, over concerns that it will raise greenhouse gas emissions and send the wrong signal to developing countries.
“Coal is not exactly the direction that the world is trying to move in, or needs to move in. What I want to know is the level of abatement here [such as whether the resulting greenhouse gases will be captured and stored] and the comparison of this particular process in the production of steel,” he said.
I like John Kerry, but he looks utterly ridiculous. Quite simply, Americans have a vested interest in stopping that coal mine.
Plus we would just be importing it from abroad for our steel industry otherwise anyway
Oops.
The Tories haven’t thought through a policy? I’m shocked I tells ya.
A great review of Harry and Meghan in The Atlantic.
"Harry and Meghan have a rare talent—pointing out things that reasonable people would agree with, but doing so in the most annoying way possible."
"as if taking on the Royal Family’s racism and the British press’s lack of scruples has become their mission. Us against the world. That is a noble intention, but it has the side effect of centering their entire lives on two institutions that they despise."
Andrew Neil on Trump: ..it does look as if Trump’s days are numbered. Republicans outside his cult core are tiring of his schtick. His status as a loser is becoming more imprinted on Republican minds. A few brave party voices are now attacking him openly. More will follow as he strays into even wilder territory to keep his face on the news channels. There is a growing desire simply to move on.
The wider benefits would be historic. If Trump is not the Republican candidate, the pressure on President Biden not to run again would be irresistible. So Trump’s departure from the scene would herald a much-needed and overdue generational shift in American politics, on the Left and Right, both wings for too long dominated by the Trump-Biden generation.
Far from being the Comeback Kid, Trump would be relegated to Yesterday’s Man. He won’t like that. But it would give him more time to deal with all the lawsuits and investigations currently pressing in on him.
Yet Biden beats De Santis 42% to 40% with RedfieldWilton but ties Trump 41% each
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
Not on their Twitter feed. They have the one from 23rd November showing 50% support for the SNP instead. What is your source?
Incidentally I note you were unable to source your claims about vaccination rates.
It's on Wiki.
Then what’s the source? Saying ‘it’s on Wiki’ and leaving it at that does not address the question. It would be like saying ‘Richard III never murdered his nephews’ and linking to an article edited by Johanna Haminga.
If it’s in Wikipedia it should have a source. If there is no source, perhaps it’s like the rest of Stuart’s output that is, made up.
There is a source, on Wiki. If that's not good enough, you'll have to lay out the the ydoethur 12 factor verification threshold just so we know in advance.
Finally, a source, and a load of silly abuse for daring to ask for it despite the fact the initial poster has demonstrated he is a habitual liar and Wikipedia is infamously untrustworthy. The latter par for the course from the current Nationalist movement, sadly. The former anything but, so we make incremental progress.
I am puzzled however as to why it’s only available on the Twitter feed of a different organisation from the pollsters with no tables and nothing to say who commissioned it. Will be interesting to see that data which will presumably be coming through today.
‘A load of silly abuse’? You appear not to have put on several layers of skin this morning.
There have been a number of occasions in the past where people have taken numbers out of context in polling and published them to support a viewpoint. This seems to have happened in just about every political direction. Both here on PB and in the wider world.
Which is why we like to see a link to a poll, and from there a link to the supporting data, all provided by the polling company.
Wikipedia is useful in direct opposite proportion to the level of advocacy and immediacy of the issue. So articles on contemporary controversial politics tend to be shaped by partisans of one side or the other.
To be fair, the more important articles get enough people fighting from all sides to kind of balance out. But there are many, many places where details are simply wrong.
Apparently* teachers find this both annoying and amusing. Annoying because they find pupils learning untruths. Amusing because they can easily spot some of the “copy and pasta from Wikipedia, then try and re-write the English to make it not look copied”.
*From speaking to teachers at both my daughters schools over the years.
The second save by the Argentina keeper was really something. The first wasn’t a great pen, but incredible reactions (and powerful wrists) on the second.
What a day of football this has been. Just wonderful. I love this game.
Fair play to FIFA. They have secured themselves an incredible tournament
Everything bad is forgotten as the soccer amazes. No one cares about Qatar or migrants or Pride Armbands or any of that any more. Give us bread and brilliant circuses
I don’t think that’s true. The prevailing view that I see (though tbh that is fairly small seeing as I’ve jacked in social media) is “great tournament, shame about the hosts”. I think I said summat similar on the last thread.
And really the quality of the tournament has nowt to do with FIFA. It’s down to the players. It is bloody good though. More to come tomorrow.
I'm not really giving FIFA credit. I reckon they just got lucky
Something about the early winter timing has amped the footie. Dunno. But it is great. And for this reason the negatives WILL be largely forgotten
FIFA must be eyeing up S E Asia. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. All football mad yet no sniff of a Cup ever, and home to 500m people
You Brits who are not AWOL sunning your pale, frail carcasses on some sun-drenched rock (or beach), are prisoners in your own country, confined indoors by compressed hours of daylight under gray skies with soggy shoes outdoors.
AND you have no Thanksgiving (feeling nothing much to feel thankful for) to take the late-fall/early-winter edge off.
Not true. The Scots have St Andrew's Day.
And Hogmanay. And 2nd January. And Burns Night.
If 2 Jan counts at all it counts as part of Hogmanay. Burns was a talentless twat, not in the top 100 of British poets. If you enjoy sharing that fact with the Swedes, crack on. He was probably not markedly worse than the likes of Erik Axel Karlfeldt.
I'm sure you are a peerless literary critic, so I'd love to see you justifying your claim that Burns is a talentless twat. He wrote a lot so I suppose there is a variety in terms of quality but his best work in my opinion stands up against anyone's.
He's not talentless, but he is not a front rank poet. Jolly good second division player, I'd say
I do love "John Anderson, my Jo"
Edit: I've just seen a website that compares Burns to Betjeman, and that is splendidly accurate. Both are beloved for portraying aspects of their nation, both are gifted at lyrical rhyme, and easy to remember - yet neither touches anything like the heights of a Keats, Larkin, Hopkins, Plath, Milton, Frost, et al
It's a matter of taste I suppose, and I'm probably more into quite direct rather than overly reflective writing, but I think there is both power and subtlety as well as striking and beautiful language in poems like for a' that or to a louse. I'm certainly not an expert on poetry but my mum is and she rates Burns highly. I think a lot of people fall into the trap of seeing Burns as the poetic equivalent of a shortbread tin, but there's a lot more to him than that.
He is a great poet, witty, wry and romantic.
Burns Night conveniently fills a need for a late January booze up with friends. I always celebrate it despite my Scottish ancestry being rather dilute.
Part of the problem is that he often wrote in Scots and a lot of people aren't familiar with the grammar and vocabulary. But that's their loss.
There were huge tensions within his personality and within his reputation, even in his own time. Which makes him an interesting guy. It's no coincidence there are surprisingly few statues to him, given the timing of the general Victorian statue mania and the fact that one needed money to put the things up. Christopher Whatley wrote an interesting book 'Immortal memory' on the issue.
There is, granted, more interest among the young in the US, many of whom have actually played soccer. Those over, say, forty, may have an anthropological interest in the games, and wonder why corruption is so tolerated, and why those strange folks overseas care so much about this particular game.
Does anyone in the US think corruption in sports is anything special, given say the continuing story of major league US baseball (in which the corruption dates back at least to Arnold Rothstein) and internationally the Olympics in which practically all the competitors cheat like hell by taking performance-enhancing drugs? It's organised sport. Doesn't everyone expect it to be filthily corrupt?
Anthropologically I find the interest in cricket interesting though. Talk about an acquired taste. It's true that anything can be interesting if you get into it enough, even throwing dog turds at a wall, and to some extent one has to be sympathetic in many cases to blokes who've gone doolally and don't realise. (Only in many cases, mind. No sympathy for that football fan who stuck a lit flare up his bum for his country.)
It's only really an aquired taste if your starting point of what a sport should be like is football. Personally, as a spectacle, I would rank them thus: 1) Cricket 2) Throwing dog turds at a wall (there definitely sounds mileage in that) 3) Football.
I would slot rugby in below cricket, and tennis and motor racing in below football.
As a sport, football has the advantage that it's very accessible, both to play and to understand. The downside to this when watching is that it feels like the whole set up has been put together by seven year old boys.
You must be eligible for some sort of mental health intervention, with a grip on reality as fragile as that?
Two men running up and down while a load of others go fetch the ball, as top ‘spectacle’? Priceless comedy!
For most spectators the bowling and batting is the attraction rather thsn the running between wickets and fielding, but yes. Watching a batsman hit a ball heading towards him at 90mph with the accuracy and power to reach the boundary is one of the 'wow' moments of sport. As is watching a ball hit wickets, or a dramatic catch. And this is done within the context of a longer tactical and strategic battle. No other sport comes close. That said, I do concede there is a time investment needed that there isn't with many other sports.
When those bored medieval Dutch children got home, babbling about their new game, the correct response would have been "that's nice, dear", and that should have been an end to it.
No idea what you are on about. Cricket is widely thought to have originated in SE England. Certainly England is where it became the game we love today.
The second save by the Argentina keeper was really something. The first wasn’t a great pen, but incredible reactions (and powerful wrists) on the second.
What a day of football this has been. Just wonderful. I love this game.
Fair play to FIFA. They have secured themselves an incredible tournament
Everything bad is forgotten as the soccer amazes. No one cares about Qatar or migrants or Pride Armbands or any of that any more. Give us bread and brilliant circuses
I don’t think that’s true. The prevailing view that I see (though tbh that is fairly small seeing as I’ve jacked in social media) is “great tournament, shame about the hosts”. I think I said summat similar on the last thread.
And really the quality of the tournament has nowt to do with FIFA. It’s down to the players. It is bloody good though. More to come tomorrow.
I'm not really giving FIFA credit. I reckon they just got lucky
Something about the early winter timing has amped the footie. Dunno. But it is great. And for this reason the negatives WILL be largely forgotten
FIFA must be eyeing up S E Asia. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. All football mad yet no sniff of a Cup ever, and home to 500m people
You Brits who are not AWOL sunning your pale, frail carcasses on some sun-drenched rock (or beach), are prisoners in your own country, confined indoors by compressed hours of daylight under gray skies with soggy shoes outdoors.
AND you have no Thanksgiving (feeling nothing much to feel thankful for) to take the late-fall/early-winter edge off.
Not true. The Scots have St Andrew's Day.
And Hogmanay. And 2nd January. And Burns Night.
If 2 Jan counts at all it counts as part of Hogmanay. Burns was a talentless twat, not in the top 100 of British poets. If you enjoy sharing that fact with the Swedes, crack on. He was probably not markedly worse than the likes of Erik Axel Karlfeldt.
I'm sure you are a peerless literary critic, so I'd love to see you justifying your claim that Burns is a talentless twat. He wrote a lot so I suppose there is a variety in terms of quality but his best work in my opinion stands up against anyone's.
He's not talentless, but he is not a front rank poet. Jolly good second division player, I'd say
I do love "John Anderson, my Jo"
Edit: I've just seen a website that compares Burns to Betjeman, and that is splendidly accurate. Both are beloved for portraying aspects of their nation, both are gifted at lyrical rhyme, and easy to remember - yet neither touches anything like the heights of a Keats, Larkin, Hopkins, Plath, Milton, Frost, et al
It's a matter of taste I suppose, and I'm probably more into quite direct rather than overly reflective writing, but I think there is both power and subtlety as well as striking and beautiful language in poems like for a' that or to a louse. I'm certainly not an expert on poetry but my mum is and she rates Burns highly. I think a lot of people fall into the trap of seeing Burns as the poetic equivalent of a shortbread tin, but there's a lot more to him than that.
He is a great poet, witty, wry and romantic.
Burns Night conveniently fills a need for a late January booze up with friends. I always celebrate it despite my Scottish ancestry being rather dilute.
Part of the problem is that he often wrote in Scots and a lot of people aren't familiar with the grammar and vocabulary. But that's their loss.
There were huge tensions within his personality and within his reputation, even in his own time. Which makes him an interesting guy. It's no coincidence there are surprisingly few statues to him, given the timing of the general Victorian statue mania and the fact that one needed money to put the things up. Christopher Whatley wrote an interesting book 'Immortal memory' on the issue.
There is, granted, more interest among the young in the US, many of whom have actually played soccer. Those over, say, forty, may have an anthropological interest in the games, and wonder why corruption is so tolerated, and why those strange folks overseas care so much about this particular game.
Does anyone in the US think corruption in sports is anything special, given say the continuing story of major league US baseball (in which the corruption dates back at least to Arnold Rothstein) and internationally the Olympics in which practically all the competitors cheat like hell by taking performance-enhancing drugs? It's organised sport. Doesn't everyone expect it to be filthily corrupt?
Anthropologically I find the interest in cricket interesting though. Talk about an acquired taste. It's true that anything can be interesting if you get into it enough, even throwing dog turds at a wall, and to some extent one has to be sympathetic in many cases to blokes who've gone doolally and don't realise. (Only in many cases, mind. No sympathy for that football fan who stuck a lit flare up his bum for his country.)
It's only really an aquired taste if your starting point of what a sport should be like is football. Personally, as a spectacle, I would rank them thus: 1) Cricket 2) Throwing dog turds at a wall (there definitely sounds mileage in that) 3) Football.
I would slot rugby in below cricket, and tennis and motor racing in below football.
As a sport, football has the advantage that it's very accessible, both to play and to understand. The downside to this when watching is that it feels like the whole set up has been put together by seven year old boys.
You must be eligible for some sort of mental health intervention, with a grip on reality as fragile as that?
Two men running up and down while a load of others go fetch the ball, as top ‘spectacle’? Priceless comedy!
For most spectators the bowling and batting is the attraction rather thsn the running between wickets and fielding, but yes. Watching a batsman hit a ball heading towards him at 90mph with the accuracy and power to reach the boundary is one of the 'wow' moments of sport. As is watching a ball hit wickets, or a dramatic catch. And this is done within the context of a longer tactical and strategic battle. No other sport comes close. That said, I do concede there is a time investment needed that there isn't with many other sports.
As a long term emotional, intellectual and sporting engagement where the better team generally wins, it's hard to beat a five Test series. Which is wonderful if you have time for that sort of thing.
Soccer is different on so.many levels. 90 minutes plus a break turns out to be the right length for an entertainment. Think plays, movies, episodes of Inspector Morse, (whisper it) The Hundred. The rules are simpler. Best of all, it's generally low scoring enough that random events against the run of play can tip the final result.
The hundred isn’t 90 minutes. More like 150 at best.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
Not on their Twitter feed. They have the one from 23rd November showing 50% support for the SNP instead. What is your source?
Incidentally I note you were unable to source your claims about vaccination rates.
It's on Wiki.
Then what’s the source? Saying ‘it’s on Wiki’ and leaving it at that does not address the question. It would be like saying ‘Richard III never murdered his nephews’ and linking to an article edited by Johanna Haminga.
If it’s in Wikipedia it should have a source. If there is no source, perhaps it’s like the rest of Stuart’s output that is, made up.
There is a source, on Wiki. If that's not good enough, you'll have to lay out the the ydoethur 12 factor verification threshold just so we know in advance.
Finally, a source, and a load of silly abuse for daring to ask for it despite the fact the initial poster has demonstrated he is a habitual liar and Wikipedia is infamously untrustworthy. The latter par for the course from the current Nationalist movement, sadly. The former anything but, so we make incremental progress.
I am puzzled however as to why it’s only available on the Twitter feed of a different organisation from the pollsters with no tables and nothing to say who commissioned it. Will be interesting to see that data which will presumably be coming through today.
‘A load of silly abuse’? You appear not to have put on several layers of skin this morning.
There have been a number of occasions in the past where people have taken numbers out of context in polling and published them to support a viewpoint. This seems to have happened in just about every political direction. Both here on PB and in the wider world.
Which is why we like to see a link to a poll, and from there a link to the supporting data, all provided by the polling company.
Wikipedia is useful in direct opposite proportion to the level of advocacy and immediacy of the issue. So articles on contemporary controversial politics tend to be shaped by partisans of one side or the other.
To be fair, the more important articles get enough people fighting from all sides to kind of balance out. But there are many, many places where details are simply wrong.
Apparently* teachers find this both annoying and amusing. Annoying because they find pupils learning untruths. Amusing because they can easily spot some of the “copy and pasta from Wikipedia, then try and re-write the English to make it not look copied”.
*From speaking to teachers at both my daughters schools over the years.
They rewrite the wikicopies?
Gosh, that sounds like a really good school. And better than some DfE publications.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
Not on their Twitter feed. They have the one from 23rd November showing 50% support for the SNP instead. What is your source?
Incidentally I note you were unable to source your claims about vaccination rates.
It's on Wiki.
Then what’s the source? Saying ‘it’s on Wiki’ and leaving it at that does not address the question. It would be like saying ‘Richard III never murdered his nephews’ and linking to an article edited by Johanna Haminga.
If it’s in Wikipedia it should have a source. If there is no source, perhaps it’s like the rest of Stuart’s output that is, made up.
There is a source, on Wiki. If that's not good enough, you'll have to lay out the the ydoethur 12 factor verification threshold just so we know in advance.
Finally, a source, and a load of silly abuse for daring to ask for it despite the fact the initial poster has demonstrated he is a habitual liar and Wikipedia is infamously untrustworthy. The latter par for the course from the current Nationalist movement, sadly. The former anything but, so we make incremental progress.
I am puzzled however as to why it’s only available on the Twitter feed of a different organisation from the pollsters with no tables and nothing to say who commissioned it. Will be interesting to see that data which will presumably be coming through today.
‘A load of silly abuse’? You appear not to have put on several layers of skin this morning.
There have been a number of occasions in the past where people have taken numbers out of context in polling and published them to support a viewpoint. This seems to have happened in just about every political direction. Both here on PB and in the wider world.
Which is why we like to see a link to a poll, and from there a link to the supporting data, all provided by the polling company.
Wikipedia is useful in direct opposite proportion to the level of advocacy and immediacy of the issue. So articles on contemporary controversial politics tend to be shaped by partisans of one side or the other.
To be fair, the more important articles get enough people fighting from all sides to kind of balance out. But there are many, many places where details are simply wrong.
Apparently* teachers find this both annoying and amusing. Annoying because they find pupils learning untruths. Amusing because they can easily spot some of the “copy and pasta from Wikipedia, then try and re-write the English to make it not look copied”.
*From speaking to teachers at both my daughters schools over the years.
They rewrite the wikicopies?
Gosh, that sounds like a really good school. And better than some DfE publications.
The DfE of course labour under a disadvantage. They can't read or write.
A great review of Harry and Meghan in The Atlantic.
"Harry and Meghan have a rare talent—pointing out things that reasonable people would agree with, but doing so in the most annoying way possible."
"as if taking on the Royal Family’s racism and the British press’s lack of scruples has become their mission. Us against the world. That is a noble intention, but it has the side effect of centering their entire lives on two institutions that they despise."
"Racism" is how Meghan dismisses any criticism of herself for her narcissistic sociopath personality disorder and, of course, there is a small but vocal activist community of people prepared to believe it and amplify it.
Of course, if you look hard enough amongst all hangers on and relatives you might find one or two suspect remarks, as you will if you trawl the gutter of the Internet, but the idea the royal family has racism or "structural" racism if complete and total nonsense.
There is, granted, more interest among the young in the US, many of whom have actually played soccer. Those over, say, forty, may have an anthropological interest in the games, and wonder why corruption is so tolerated, and why those strange folks overseas care so much about this particular game.
Does anyone in the US think corruption in sports is anything special, given say the continuing story of major league US baseball (in which the corruption dates back at least to Arnold Rothstein) and internationally the Olympics in which practically all the competitors cheat like hell by taking performance-enhancing drugs? It's organised sport. Doesn't everyone expect it to be filthily corrupt?
Anthropologically I find the interest in cricket interesting though. Talk about an acquired taste. It's true that anything can be interesting if you get into it enough, even throwing dog turds at a wall, and to some extent one has to be sympathetic in many cases to blokes who've gone doolally and don't realise. (Only in many cases, mind. No sympathy for that football fan who stuck a lit flare up his bum for his country.)
It's only really an aquired taste if your starting point of what a sport should be like is football. Personally, as a spectacle, I would rank them thus: 1) Cricket 2) Throwing dog turds at a wall (there definitely sounds mileage in that) 3) Football.
I would slot rugby in below cricket, and tennis and motor racing in below football.
As a sport, football has the advantage that it's very accessible, both to play and to understand. The downside to this when watching is that it feels like the whole set up has been put together by seven year old boys.
You must be eligible for some sort of mental health intervention, with a grip on reality as fragile as that?
Two men running up and down while a load of others go fetch the ball, as top ‘spectacle’? Priceless comedy!
For most spectators the bowling and batting is the attraction rather thsn the running between wickets and fielding, but yes. Watching a batsman hit a ball heading towards him at 90mph with the accuracy and power to reach the boundary is one of the 'wow' moments of sport. As is watching a ball hit wickets, or a dramatic catch. And this is done within the context of a longer tactical and strategic battle. No other sport comes close. That said, I do concede there is a time investment needed that there isn't with many other sports.
When those bored medieval Dutch children got home, babbling about their new game, the correct response would have been "that's nice, dear", and that should have been an end to it.
No idea what you are on about. Cricket is widely thought to have originated in SE England. Certainly England is where it became the game we love today.
ChatGPT knows what I am on about:
While cricket is believed to have originated in England, there is evidence that the game was influenced by earlier bat-and-ball games that were played in the Low Countries (also known as the Netherlands and Belgium). These games, which were popular among children and adults alike, were likely similar to cricket in terms of the basic principles and rules of the game. The first recorded cricket match was played in the 16th century in the Weald, a region of southeast England. It is likely that the English version of cricket evolved from these earlier games, although the exact origins of the sport remain unclear.
Russia is losing its influence among its neighbors and is rightly viewed as a threat.
“If you want to see Nazis and fascists, look in the mirror.”
Ironically, the current Kazakh government would have been overthrown a year or so ago without Russia's help.
Putin must be spitting feathers that Lukshenko and Tokayev are not supporting his Special Military Operation as he would wish.
Mind you, he himself has done some silly things in the past. A couple of years back he let two of his stooges in the Duma say that Kazakhstan was 'leased' from Russia and would eventually return to it. The Kazakhs were not amused. I imagine they are less amused now!
The second save by the Argentina keeper was really something. The first wasn’t a great pen, but incredible reactions (and powerful wrists) on the second.
What a day of football this has been. Just wonderful. I love this game.
Fair play to FIFA. They have secured themselves an incredible tournament
Everything bad is forgotten as the soccer amazes. No one cares about Qatar or migrants or Pride Armbands or any of that any more. Give us bread and brilliant circuses
I don’t think that’s true. The prevailing view that I see (though tbh that is fairly small seeing as I’ve jacked in social media) is “great tournament, shame about the hosts”. I think I said summat similar on the last thread.
And really the quality of the tournament has nowt to do with FIFA. It’s down to the players. It is bloody good though. More to come tomorrow.
I'm not really giving FIFA credit. I reckon they just got lucky
Something about the early winter timing has amped the footie. Dunno. But it is great. And for this reason the negatives WILL be largely forgotten
FIFA must be eyeing up S E Asia. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. All football mad yet no sniff of a Cup ever, and home to 500m people
You Brits who are not AWOL sunning your pale, frail carcasses on some sun-drenched rock (or beach), are prisoners in your own country, confined indoors by compressed hours of daylight under gray skies with soggy shoes outdoors.
AND you have no Thanksgiving (feeling nothing much to feel thankful for) to take the late-fall/early-winter edge off.
Not true. The Scots have St Andrew's Day.
And Hogmanay. And 2nd January. And Burns Night.
If 2 Jan counts at all it counts as part of Hogmanay. Burns was a talentless twat, not in the top 100 of British poets. If you enjoy sharing that fact with the Swedes, crack on. He was probably not markedly worse than the likes of Erik Axel Karlfeldt.
I'm sure you are a peerless literary critic, so I'd love to see you justifying your claim that Burns is a talentless twat. He wrote a lot so I suppose there is a variety in terms of quality but his best work in my opinion stands up against anyone's.
He's not talentless, but he is not a front rank poet. Jolly good second division player, I'd say
I do love "John Anderson, my Jo"
Edit: I've just seen a website that compares Burns to Betjeman, and that is splendidly accurate. Both are beloved for portraying aspects of their nation, both are gifted at lyrical rhyme, and easy to remember - yet neither touches anything like the heights of a Keats, Larkin, Hopkins, Plath, Milton, Frost, et al
It's a matter of taste I suppose, and I'm probably more into quite direct rather than overly reflective writing, but I think there is both power and subtlety as well as striking and beautiful language in poems like for a' that or to a louse. I'm certainly not an expert on poetry but my mum is and she rates Burns highly. I think a lot of people fall into the trap of seeing Burns as the poetic equivalent of a shortbread tin, but there's a lot more to him than that.
He is a great poet, witty, wry and romantic.
Burns Night conveniently fills a need for a late January booze up with friends. I always celebrate it despite my Scottish ancestry being rather dilute.
Part of the problem is that he often wrote in Scots and a lot of people aren't familiar with the grammar and vocabulary. But that's their loss.
Scots is a Germanic language that is closely related to English and is spoken in Scotland. It has many distinctive features that set it apart from other varieties of English. Some of the most notable characteristics of Scots grammar include the use of verb-second word order in sentences, the use of the definite article "the" before plural nouns, and the use of the pronoun "ye" instead of "you" in the second person plural. The vocabulary of Scots also has many unique words and phrases that are not found in standard English, such as "ken" (to know) and "braw" (fine or handsome). Overall, the grammar and vocabulary of Scots reflect the rich cultural heritage of Scotland and provide insight into the history and development of the language.
There is, granted, more interest among the young in the US, many of whom have actually played soccer. Those over, say, forty, may have an anthropological interest in the games, and wonder why corruption is so tolerated, and why those strange folks overseas care so much about this particular game.
Does anyone in the US think corruption in sports is anything special, given say the continuing story of major league US baseball (in which the corruption dates back at least to Arnold Rothstein) and internationally the Olympics in which practically all the competitors cheat like hell by taking performance-enhancing drugs? It's organised sport. Doesn't everyone expect it to be filthily corrupt?
Anthropologically I find the interest in cricket interesting though. Talk about an acquired taste. It's true that anything can be interesting if you get into it enough, even throwing dog turds at a wall, and to some extent one has to be sympathetic in many cases to blokes who've gone doolally and don't realise. (Only in many cases, mind. No sympathy for that football fan who stuck a lit flare up his bum for his country.)
It's only really an aquired taste if your starting point of what a sport should be like is football. Personally, as a spectacle, I would rank them thus: 1) Cricket 2) Throwing dog turds at a wall (there definitely sounds mileage in that) 3) Football.
I would slot rugby in below cricket, and tennis and motor racing in below football.
As a sport, football has the advantage that it's very accessible, both to play and to understand. The downside to this when watching is that it feels like the whole set up has been put together by seven year old boys.
You must be eligible for some sort of mental health intervention, with a grip on reality as fragile as that?
Two men running up and down while a load of others go fetch the ball, as top ‘spectacle’? Priceless comedy!
For most spectators the bowling and batting is the attraction rather thsn the running between wickets and fielding, but yes. Watching a batsman hit a ball heading towards him at 90mph with the accuracy and power to reach the boundary is one of the 'wow' moments of sport. As is watching a ball hit wickets, or a dramatic catch. And this is done within the context of a longer tactical and strategic battle. No other sport comes close. That said, I do concede there is a time investment needed that there isn't with many other sports.
When those bored medieval Dutch children got home, babbling about their new game, the correct response would have been "that's nice, dear", and that should have been an end to it.
No idea what you are on about. Cricket is widely thought to have originated in SE England. Certainly England is where it became the game we love today.
ChatGPT knows what I am on about:
While cricket is believed to have originated in England, there is evidence that the game was influenced by earlier bat-and-ball games that were played in the Low Countries (also known as the Netherlands and Belgium). These games, which were popular among children and adults alike, were likely similar to cricket in terms of the basic principles and rules of the game. The first recorded cricket match was played in the 16th century in the Weald, a region of southeast England. It is likely that the English version of cricket evolved from these earlier games, although the exact origins of the sport remain unclear.
Perhaps ask it about Piltdown man and his cricket bat?
A great review of Harry and Meghan in The Atlantic.
"Harry and Meghan have a rare talent—pointing out things that reasonable people would agree with, but doing so in the most annoying way possible."
"as if taking on the Royal Family’s racism and the British press’s lack of scruples has become their mission. Us against the world. That is a noble intention, but it has the side effect of centering their entire lives on two institutions that they despise."
"Racism" is how Meghan dismisses any criticism of herself for her narcissistic sociopath personality disorder and, of course, there is a small but vocal activist community of people prepared to believe it and amplify it.
Of course, if you look hard enough amongst all hangers on and relatives you might find one or two suspect remarks, as you will if you trawl the gutter of the Internet, but the idea the royal family has racism or "structural" racism if complete and total nonsense.
Bear in mind also that Meghan and (for practical purposes) Harry are American now.
Different place, different standards. The Netflix thing isn't really aimed at us.
Though the response of the British media to criticism of the British media shows that M+H may have a bit of a point.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
Which is why as long as we Tories are in power we will never allow indyref2.
If Starmer allows indyref2 his problem to win it with devomax etc
I take the blame for the run out - I went out to feed the birds.
Going out to feed the birds while watching a cricket match could be a pleasant and enjoyable experience for some people. Being outdoors and interacting with nature can provide a sense of connection and serenity, and watching birds can be a relaxing and rewarding activity. At the same time, cricket is a fast-paced and exciting sport that can be thrilling to watch, and combining the two activities could provide a well-rounded and satisfying experience. However, it is important to be aware of potential distractions and to make sure that the cricket match is not interrupted or compromised in any way.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
Yoons: the only path for Scotland to have another referendum on membership of this voluntary as anything Union is consistent polling in favour of indy.
Some consistent polling in favour of Indy ensues.
Who could have predicted?
It was over 60% consistent Yes the test, so still failed, tough
I take the blame for the run out - I went out to feed the birds.
Going out to feed the birds while watching a cricket match could be a pleasant and enjoyable experience for some people. Being outdoors and interacting with nature can provide a sense of connection and serenity, and watching birds can be a relaxing and rewarding activity. At the same time, cricket is a fast-paced and exciting sport that can be thrilling to watch, and combining the two activities could provide a well-rounded and satisfying experience. However, it is important to be aware of potential distractions and to make sure that the cricket match is not interrupted or compromised in any way.
They've just shown one of @turbotubbs birds on the box. Feeding that wouldn't be relaxing
A great review of Harry and Meghan in The Atlantic.
"Harry and Meghan have a rare talent—pointing out things that reasonable people would agree with, but doing so in the most annoying way possible."
"as if taking on the Royal Family’s racism and the British press’s lack of scruples has become their mission. Us against the world. That is a noble intention, but it has the side effect of centering their entire lives on two institutions that they despise."
I started to know The Atlantic through their excellent Covid articles, but there is so much more. An annual subscription online is a good value present for anyone with an interest in good writing. I can think of no British publication that comes close. Perhaps the FT weekend edition.
I take the blame for the run out - I went out to feed the birds.
Going out to feed the birds while watching a cricket match could be a pleasant and enjoyable experience for some people. Being outdoors and interacting with nature can provide a sense of connection and serenity, and watching birds can be a relaxing and rewarding activity. At the same time, cricket is a fast-paced and exciting sport that can be thrilling to watch, and combining the two activities could provide a well-rounded and satisfying experience. However, it is important to be aware of potential distractions and to make sure that the cricket match is not interrupted or compromised in any way.
They've just shown one of @turbotubbs birds on the box. Feeding that wouldn't be relaxing
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
A "generation" in politics is generally considered to be a group of people who come of age and enter politics at a similar time. The length of a generation in politics can vary depending on a number of factors, such as the average lifespan of individuals, the rate of political turnover, and the rate of social and political change. In general, a generation in politics might last anywhere from a few decades to several generations, and the exact length of a generation is difficult to determine. Some people might consider a generation in politics to be a group of people who enter politics within a certain time period, such as 10 or 20 years, while others might consider a generation to be a group of people who share similar experiences and political views. Ultimately, the concept of a generation in politics is somewhat subjective and can be defined in different ways.
I take the blame for the run out - I went out to feed the birds.
Going out to feed the birds while watching a cricket match could be a pleasant and enjoyable experience for some people. Being outdoors and interacting with nature can provide a sense of connection and serenity, and watching birds can be a relaxing and rewarding activity. At the same time, cricket is a fast-paced and exciting sport that can be thrilling to watch, and combining the two activities could provide a well-rounded and satisfying experience. However, it is important to be aware of potential distractions and to make sure that the cricket match is not interrupted or compromised in any way.
They've just shown one of @turbotubbs birds on the box. Feeding that wouldn't be relaxing
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
Which is why as long as we Tories are in power we will never allow indyref2.
If Starmer allows indyref2 his problem to win it with devomax etc
Making it up still with more mince than a Coatbridge catfood factory. Where's this word 'generation' in the SC judgement then?
A great review of Harry and Meghan in The Atlantic.
"Harry and Meghan have a rare talent—pointing out things that reasonable people would agree with, but doing so in the most annoying way possible."
"as if taking on the Royal Family’s racism and the British press’s lack of scruples has become their mission. Us against the world. That is a noble intention, but it has the side effect of centering their entire lives on two institutions that they despise."
"Racism" is how Meghan dismisses any criticism of herself for her narcissistic sociopath personality disorder and, of course, there is a small but vocal activist community of people prepared to believe it and amplify it.
Of course, if you look hard enough amongst all hangers on and relatives you might find one or two suspect remarks, as you will if you trawl the gutter of the Internet, but the idea the royal family has racism or "structural" racism if complete and total nonsense.
Bear in mind also that Meghan and (for practical purposes) Harry are American now.
Different place, different standards. The Netflix thing isn't really aimed at us.
Though the response of the British media to criticism of the British media shows that M+H may have a bit of a point.
It seems whatever the British media do or don’t do proves their point.
Whenever you believe in something strong enough, and believe it's everywhere, you will find it.
The second save by the Argentina keeper was really something. The first wasn’t a great pen, but incredible reactions (and powerful wrists) on the second.
What a day of football this has been. Just wonderful. I love this game.
Fair play to FIFA. They have secured themselves an incredible tournament
Everything bad is forgotten as the soccer amazes. No one cares about Qatar or migrants or Pride Armbands or any of that any more. Give us bread and brilliant circuses
I don’t think that’s true. The prevailing view that I see (though tbh that is fairly small seeing as I’ve jacked in social media) is “great tournament, shame about the hosts”. I think I said summat similar on the last thread.
And really the quality of the tournament has nowt to do with FIFA. It’s down to the players. It is bloody good though. More to come tomorrow.
I'm not really giving FIFA credit. I reckon they just got lucky
Something about the early winter timing has amped the footie. Dunno. But it is great. And for this reason the negatives WILL be largely forgotten
FIFA must be eyeing up S E Asia. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. All football mad yet no sniff of a Cup ever, and home to 500m people
You Brits who are not AWOL sunning your pale, frail carcasses on some sun-drenched rock (or beach), are prisoners in your own country, confined indoors by compressed hours of daylight under gray skies with soggy shoes outdoors.
AND you have no Thanksgiving (feeling nothing much to feel thankful for) to take the late-fall/early-winter edge off.
Not true. The Scots have St Andrew's Day.
And Hogmanay. And 2nd January. And Burns Night.
If 2 Jan counts at all it counts as part of Hogmanay. Burns was a talentless twat, not in the top 100 of British poets. If you enjoy sharing that fact with the Swedes, crack on. He was probably not markedly worse than the likes of Erik Axel Karlfeldt.
I'm sure you are a peerless literary critic, so I'd love to see you justifying your claim that Burns is a talentless twat. He wrote a lot so I suppose there is a variety in terms of quality but his best work in my opinion stands up against anyone's.
He's not talentless, but he is not a front rank poet. Jolly good second division player, I'd say
I do love "John Anderson, my Jo"
Edit: I've just seen a website that compares Burns to Betjeman, and that is splendidly accurate. Both are beloved for portraying aspects of their nation, both are gifted at lyrical rhyme, and easy to remember - yet neither touches anything like the heights of a Keats, Larkin, Hopkins, Plath, Milton, Frost, et al
It's a matter of taste I suppose, and I'm probably more into quite direct rather than overly reflective writing, but I think there is both power and subtlety as well as striking and beautiful language in poems like for a' that or to a louse. I'm certainly not an expert on poetry but my mum is and she rates Burns highly. I think a lot of people fall into the trap of seeing Burns as the poetic equivalent of a shortbread tin, but there's a lot more to him than that.
He is a great poet, witty, wry and romantic.
Burns Night conveniently fills a need for a late January booze up with friends. I always celebrate it despite my Scottish ancestry being rather dilute.
Part of the problem is that he often wrote in Scots and a lot of people aren't familiar with the grammar and vocabulary. But that's their loss.
There were huge tensions within his personality and within his reputation, even in his own time. Which makes him an interesting guy. It's no coincidence there are surprisingly few statues to him, given the timing of the general Victorian statue mania and the fact that one needed money to put the things up. Christopher Whatley wrote an interesting book 'Immortal memory' on the issue.
I take the blame for the run out - I went out to feed the birds.
Going out to feed the birds while watching a cricket match could be a pleasant and enjoyable experience for some people. Being outdoors and interacting with nature can provide a sense of connection and serenity, and watching birds can be a relaxing and rewarding activity. At the same time, cricket is a fast-paced and exciting sport that can be thrilling to watch, and combining the two activities could provide a well-rounded and satisfying experience. However, it is important to be aware of potential distractions and to make sure that the cricket match is not interrupted or compromised in any way.
They've just shown one of @turbotubbs birds on the box. Feeding that wouldn't be relaxing
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
Which is why as long as we Tories are in power we will never allow indyref2.
If Starmer allows indyref2 his problem to win it with devomax etc
I wish you lads would make up your wee, inconsistent minds; sometimes it’s once a generation has passed, other times over 60% polling, and when you’re really in touch with your inner Franco it’s never, never, never. Yer all over the place.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
Which is why as long as we Tories are in power we will never allow indyref2.
If Starmer allows indyref2 his problem to win it with devomax etc
As you say, no Conservative government will allow another independence referendum? But why not? To avoid distressing the Queen? Because they fear they cannot win an election in a Scotland-less Britain? Just this year, we have had three Prime Ministers because the Conservative Party, this Conservative Party, will do almost anything in return for power. Why not an independence referendum if, after the general election, the choice is that or opposition?
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
A "generation" in politics is generally considered to be a group of people who come of age and enter politics at a similar time. The length of a generation in politics can vary depending on a number of factors, such as the average lifespan of individuals, the rate of political turnover, and the rate of social and political change. In general, a generation in politics might last anywhere from a few decades to several generations, and the exact length of a generation is difficult to determine. Some people might consider a generation in politics to be a group of people who enter politics within a certain time period, such as 10 or 20 years, while others might consider a generation to be a group of people who share similar experiences and political views. Ultimately, the concept of a generation in politics is somewhat subjective and can be defined in different ways.
Once, there was a journalist named Cyclefree who was commissioned to write a piece comparing three activities: watching the cricket, feeding the birds, and rubbing poo in your face like that there IanB2.
Cyclefree wasn't sure what to make of the assignment, but she knew she had to deliver a high-quality article. She decided to start by researching each activity and learning more about them.
First, Cyclefree looked into watching the cricket. She learned that cricket is a popular sport played between two teams of eleven players each. The teams take turns batting and fielding, and the goal is to score more runs than the other team. Cyclefree also learned that cricket has a rich history and a large following around the world, particularly in countries where the sport is more popular, such as England and Australia.
Next, Cyclefree researched feeding the birds. She learned that many people enjoy feeding birds as a way to attract them to their gardens and backyards. There are many different types of bird feeders and birdseed available, and people often find it rewarding to watch the birds come and go.
Finally, Cyclefree turned her attention to the strange and mysterious activity of rubbing poo in your face like that there IanB2. She was unable to find any information or examples of this activity, and she began to wonder if it was even a real thing. She decided to contact IanB2 and ask for more details.
When IanB2 replied to Cyclefree's email, he explained that rubbing poo in your face was a private hobby he did with his only friend, a dog. He apologized for any confusion and wished Cyclefree luck with her article.
Despite IanB2's explanation, Cyclefree was determined to include the activity of rubbing poo in her article. She decided to approach it from a humorous angle, and she wrote a satirical piece comparing the absurdity of rubbing poo in your face with the more mainstream activities of watching the cricket and feeding the birds.
The moderator of website politicalbetting.com was impressed with Cyclefree's unique take on the assignment, and the article was published on the website the following week. It quickly became a popular and controversial piece, with many readers expressing shock and amusement at the idea of rubbing poo in your face.
In the end, Cyclefree decided to try rubbing poo on her own face, and to her surprise, she found that she enjoyed it. She concluded her article by encouraging others to give it a try and see for themselves the strange and wondrous effects of rubbing poo on your face.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
A "generation" in politics is generally considered to be a group of people who come of age and enter politics at a similar time. The length of a generation in politics can vary depending on a number of factors, such as the average lifespan of individuals, the rate of political turnover, and the rate of social and political change. In general, a generation in politics might last anywhere from a few decades to several generations, and the exact length of a generation is difficult to determine. Some people might consider a generation in politics to be a group of people who enter politics within a certain time period, such as 10 or 20 years, while others might consider a generation to be a group of people who share similar experiences and political views. Ultimately, the concept of a generation in politics is somewhat subjective and can be defined in different ways.
And what about when the level of argument from the Unionist in question would shame a nematode worm? I think we're justified in taking the generatioin length of Caenorhabditis elegans as our benchmark then,.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I agree 100% Stuart, however it took me a few reads to realise I did. 'less unpopular '?
A great review of Harry and Meghan in The Atlantic.
"Harry and Meghan have a rare talent—pointing out things that reasonable people would agree with, but doing so in the most annoying way possible."
"as if taking on the Royal Family’s racism and the British press’s lack of scruples has become their mission. Us against the world. That is a noble intention, but it has the side effect of centering their entire lives on two institutions that they despise."
"Racism" is how Meghan dismisses any criticism of herself for her narcissistic sociopath personality disorder and, of course, there is a small but vocal activist community of people prepared to believe it and amplify it.
Of course, if you look hard enough amongst all hangers on and relatives you might find one or two suspect remarks, as you will if you trawl the gutter of the Internet, but the idea the royal family has racism or "structural" racism if complete and total nonsense.
Bear in mind also that Meghan and (for practical purposes) Harry are American now.
Different place, different standards. The Netflix thing isn't really aimed at us.
Though the response of the British media to criticism of the British media shows that M+H may have a bit of a point.
It seems whatever the British media do or don’t do proves their point.
Whenever you believe in something strong enough, and believe it's everywhere, you will find it.
Like the Wokefinders General so prevalent here and elsewhere?
There is, granted, more interest among the young in the US, many of whom have actually played soccer. Those over, say, forty, may have an anthropological interest in the games, and wonder why corruption is so tolerated, and why those strange folks overseas care so much about this particular game.
Does anyone in the US think corruption in sports is anything special, given say the continuing story of major league US baseball (in which the corruption dates back at least to Arnold Rothstein) and internationally the Olympics in which practically all the competitors cheat like hell by taking performance-enhancing drugs? It's organised sport. Doesn't everyone expect it to be filthily corrupt?
Anthropologically I find the interest in cricket interesting though. Talk about an acquired taste. It's true that anything can be interesting if you get into it enough, even throwing dog turds at a wall, and to some extent one has to be sympathetic in many cases to blokes who've gone doolally and don't realise. (Only in many cases, mind. No sympathy for that football fan who stuck a lit flare up his bum for his country.)
It's only really an aquired taste if your starting point of what a sport should be like is football. Personally, as a spectacle, I would rank them thus: 1) Cricket 2) Throwing dog turds at a wall (there definitely sounds mileage in that) 3) Football.
I would slot rugby in below cricket, and tennis and motor racing in below football.
As a sport, football has the advantage that it's very accessible, both to play and to understand. The downside to this when watching is that it feels like the whole set up has been put together by seven year old boys.
You must be eligible for some sort of mental health intervention, with a grip on reality as fragile as that?
Two men running up and down while a load of others go fetch the ball, as top ‘spectacle’? Priceless comedy!
For most spectators the bowling and batting is the attraction rather thsn the running between wickets and fielding, but yes. Watching a batsman hit a ball heading towards him at 90mph with the accuracy and power to reach the boundary is one of the 'wow' moments of sport. As is watching a ball hit wickets, or a dramatic catch. And this is done within the context of a longer tactical and strategic battle. No other sport comes close. That said, I do concede there is a time investment needed that there isn't with many other sports.
When those bored medieval Dutch children got home, babbling about their new game, the correct response would have been "that's nice, dear", and that should have been an end to it.
No idea what you are on about. Cricket is widely thought to have originated in SE England. Certainly England is where it became the game we love today.
ChatGPT knows what I am on about:
While cricket is believed to have originated in England, there is evidence that the game was influenced by earlier bat-and-ball games that were played in the Low Countries (also known as the Netherlands and Belgium). These games, which were popular among children and adults alike, were likely similar to cricket in terms of the basic principles and rules of the game. The first recorded cricket match was played in the 16th century in the Weald, a region of southeast England. It is likely that the English version of cricket evolved from these earlier games, although the exact origins of the sport remain unclear.
Bat and ball and football games are pretty universal, but surely these sports only emerged in their modern forms when codified in the 18th and 19th Centuries?
Hopefully there are others like me who are blissfully unaware of what Harry or Meghan have said recently - I literally dont care at all. Not care in the sense of not agreeing with them but just not care at all . I know if you have read or seen what they have said it cannot be undone but I recommend this approach next time you get advanced warning of some celebrity pouring their heart out (or to sell a TV series) . Its blissful ignorance , innocent even.
The second save by the Argentina keeper was really something. The first wasn’t a great pen, but incredible reactions (and powerful wrists) on the second.
What a day of football this has been. Just wonderful. I love this game.
Fair play to FIFA. They have secured themselves an incredible tournament
Everything bad is forgotten as the soccer amazes. No one cares about Qatar or migrants or Pride Armbands or any of that any more. Give us bread and brilliant circuses
I don’t think that’s true. The prevailing view that I see (though tbh that is fairly small seeing as I’ve jacked in social media) is “great tournament, shame about the hosts”. I think I said summat similar on the last thread.
And really the quality of the tournament has nowt to do with FIFA. It’s down to the players. It is bloody good though. More to come tomorrow.
I'm not really giving FIFA credit. I reckon they just got lucky
Something about the early winter timing has amped the footie. Dunno. But it is great. And for this reason the negatives WILL be largely forgotten
FIFA must be eyeing up S E Asia. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. All football mad yet no sniff of a Cup ever, and home to 500m people
You Brits who are not AWOL sunning your pale, frail carcasses on some sun-drenched rock (or beach), are prisoners in your own country, confined indoors by compressed hours of daylight under gray skies with soggy shoes outdoors.
AND you have no Thanksgiving (feeling nothing much to feel thankful for) to take the late-fall/early-winter edge off.
Not true. The Scots have St Andrew's Day.
And Hogmanay. And 2nd January. And Burns Night.
If 2 Jan counts at all it counts as part of Hogmanay. Burns was a talentless twat, not in the top 100 of British poets. If you enjoy sharing that fact with the Swedes, crack on. He was probably not markedly worse than the likes of Erik Axel Karlfeldt.
I'm sure you are a peerless literary critic, so I'd love to see you justifying your claim that Burns is a talentless twat. He wrote a lot so I suppose there is a variety in terms of quality but his best work in my opinion stands up against anyone's.
He's not talentless, but he is not a front rank poet. Jolly good second division player, I'd say
I do love "John Anderson, my Jo"
Edit: I've just seen a website that compares Burns to Betjeman, and that is splendidly accurate. Both are beloved for portraying aspects of their nation, both are gifted at lyrical rhyme, and easy to remember - yet neither touches anything like the heights of a Keats, Larkin, Hopkins, Plath, Milton, Frost, et al
It's a matter of taste I suppose, and I'm probably more into quite direct rather than overly reflective writing, but I think there is both power and subtlety as well as striking and beautiful language in poems like for a' that or to a louse. I'm certainly not an expert on poetry but my mum is and she rates Burns highly. I think a lot of people fall into the trap of seeing Burns as the poetic equivalent of a shortbread tin, but there's a lot more to him than that.
He is a great poet, witty, wry and romantic.
Burns Night conveniently fills a need for a late January booze up with friends. I always celebrate it despite my Scottish ancestry being rather dilute.
Part of the problem is that he often wrote in Scots and a lot of people aren't familiar with the grammar and vocabulary. But that's their loss.
There were huge tensions within his personality and within his reputation, even in his own time. Which makes him an interesting guy. It's no coincidence there are surprisingly few statues to him, given the timing of the general Victorian statue mania and the fact that one needed money to put the things up. Christopher Whatley wrote an interesting book 'Immortal memory' on the issue.
Arguably, the best comparison would be with Kipling. Although I personally think Burns' output was overall better than Kipling's.
Would it ? Kipling was a very different kind of writer. And he was a poet of empire rather than exclusively England.
Kipling was a great kids’ writer first, a decent (if stodgy) novelist and prose writer second, and a pleasing illustrator third. His poetry is cringeworthy; the poetic equivalent of Beryl Cook or Jack Vettriano - bafflingly popular pastiche.
Lest we forget of course, he does make exceedingly good cakes.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
Which is why as long as we Tories are in power we will never allow indyref2.
If Starmer allows indyref2 his problem to win it with devomax etc
As you say, no Conservative government will allow another independence referendum? But why not? To avoid distressing the Queen? Because they fear they cannot win an election in a Scotland-less Britain? Just this year, we have had three Prime Ministers because the Conservative Party, this Conservative Party, will do almost anything in return for power. Why not an independence referendum if, after the general election, the choice is that or opposition?
That, about HMtQ, is what Popper would call an unfalsifiable test.
Hopefully there are others like me who are blissfully unaware of what Harry or Meghan have said recently - I literally dont care at all. Not care in the sense of not agreeing with them but just not care at all . I know if you have read or seen what they have said it cannot be undone but I recommend this approach next time you get advanced warning of some celebrity pouring their heart out (or to sell a TV series) . Its blissful ignorance , innocent even.
This is the kind of nonsense that is our problem. Who is Lady Hussey and why should I care whether she resigned or didn't resign? Don't know. Don't care. And she doesn't matter. The issue doesn't matter. We have all kinds of serious shit going on in this country and people are being told they should be concerned about some pointless nothing.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
Which is why as long as we Tories are in power we will never allow indyref2.
If Starmer allows indyref2 his problem to win it with devomax etc
As you say, no Conservative government will allow another independence referendum? But why not? To avoid distressing the Queen? Because they fear they cannot win an election in a Scotland-less Britain? Just this year, we have had three Prime Ministers because the Conservative Party, this Conservative Party, will do almost anything in return for power. Why not an independence referendum if, after the general election, the choice is that or opposition?
As we are the Conservative and Unionist party. Even if a Labour government granted indyref2 we would still back the Union.
If it was lost however we would switch overnight to being an English Nationalist party, cancel all transfers to Scotland, start erecting the border posts from Cumbria to Northumberland and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks.
Even if won again I expect we would also switch to back an English parliament given Holyrood would likely have been offered devomax to ensure No won
The second save by the Argentina keeper was really something. The first wasn’t a great pen, but incredible reactions (and powerful wrists) on the second.
What a day of football this has been. Just wonderful. I love this game.
Fair play to FIFA. They have secured themselves an incredible tournament
Everything bad is forgotten as the soccer amazes. No one cares about Qatar or migrants or Pride Armbands or any of that any more. Give us bread and brilliant circuses
I don’t think that’s true. The prevailing view that I see (though tbh that is fairly small seeing as I’ve jacked in social media) is “great tournament, shame about the hosts”. I think I said summat similar on the last thread.
And really the quality of the tournament has nowt to do with FIFA. It’s down to the players. It is bloody good though. More to come tomorrow.
I'm not really giving FIFA credit. I reckon they just got lucky
Something about the early winter timing has amped the footie. Dunno. But it is great. And for this reason the negatives WILL be largely forgotten
FIFA must be eyeing up S E Asia. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. All football mad yet no sniff of a Cup ever, and home to 500m people
You Brits who are not AWOL sunning your pale, frail carcasses on some sun-drenched rock (or beach), are prisoners in your own country, confined indoors by compressed hours of daylight under gray skies with soggy shoes outdoors.
AND you have no Thanksgiving (feeling nothing much to feel thankful for) to take the late-fall/early-winter edge off.
Not true. The Scots have St Andrew's Day.
And Hogmanay. And 2nd January. And Burns Night.
If 2 Jan counts at all it counts as part of Hogmanay. Burns was a talentless twat, not in the top 100 of British poets. If you enjoy sharing that fact with the Swedes, crack on. He was probably not markedly worse than the likes of Erik Axel Karlfeldt.
I'm sure you are a peerless literary critic, so I'd love to see you justifying your claim that Burns is a talentless twat. He wrote a lot so I suppose there is a variety in terms of quality but his best work in my opinion stands up against anyone's.
He's not talentless, but he is not a front rank poet. Jolly good second division player, I'd say
I do love "John Anderson, my Jo"
Edit: I've just seen a website that compares Burns to Betjeman, and that is splendidly accurate. Both are beloved for portraying aspects of their nation, both are gifted at lyrical rhyme, and easy to remember - yet neither touches anything like the heights of a Keats, Larkin, Hopkins, Plath, Milton, Frost, et al
It's a matter of taste I suppose, and I'm probably more into quite direct rather than overly reflective writing, but I think there is both power and subtlety as well as striking and beautiful language in poems like for a' that or to a louse. I'm certainly not an expert on poetry but my mum is and she rates Burns highly. I think a lot of people fall into the trap of seeing Burns as the poetic equivalent of a shortbread tin, but there's a lot more to him than that.
He is a great poet, witty, wry and romantic.
Burns Night conveniently fills a need for a late January booze up with friends. I always celebrate it despite my Scottish ancestry being rather dilute.
Part of the problem is that he often wrote in Scots and a lot of people aren't familiar with the grammar and vocabulary. But that's their loss.
There were huge tensions within his personality and within his reputation, even in his own time. Which makes him an interesting guy. It's no coincidence there are surprisingly few statues to him, given the timing of the general Victorian statue mania and the fact that one needed money to put the things up. Christopher Whatley wrote an interesting book 'Immortal memory' on the issue.
Because he had to make a living a lot of his output is one or maybe 2 steps up on doggerel. But when he was good he was very, very good. Tom O'Shanter is one of the funniest poems ever written as is Holy Willie's Prayer. He had a great eye for the absurd and the hypocrisy of human society. Although our society is very different from the one he lived in human nature is sufficiently durable to get his targets.
I really enjoy a Burns night. Its usually funny with plenty of drink and decent food. What's not to like?
The second save by the Argentina keeper was really something. The first wasn’t a great pen, but incredible reactions (and powerful wrists) on the second.
What a day of football this has been. Just wonderful. I love this game.
Fair play to FIFA. They have secured themselves an incredible tournament
Everything bad is forgotten as the soccer amazes. No one cares about Qatar or migrants or Pride Armbands or any of that any more. Give us bread and brilliant circuses
I don’t think that’s true. The prevailing view that I see (though tbh that is fairly small seeing as I’ve jacked in social media) is “great tournament, shame about the hosts”. I think I said summat similar on the last thread.
And really the quality of the tournament has nowt to do with FIFA. It’s down to the players. It is bloody good though. More to come tomorrow.
I'm not really giving FIFA credit. I reckon they just got lucky
Something about the early winter timing has amped the footie. Dunno. But it is great. And for this reason the negatives WILL be largely forgotten
FIFA must be eyeing up S E Asia. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. All football mad yet no sniff of a Cup ever, and home to 500m people
You Brits who are not AWOL sunning your pale, frail carcasses on some sun-drenched rock (or beach), are prisoners in your own country, confined indoors by compressed hours of daylight under gray skies with soggy shoes outdoors.
AND you have no Thanksgiving (feeling nothing much to feel thankful for) to take the late-fall/early-winter edge off.
Not true. The Scots have St Andrew's Day.
And Hogmanay. And 2nd January. And Burns Night.
If 2 Jan counts at all it counts as part of Hogmanay. Burns was a talentless twat, not in the top 100 of British poets. If you enjoy sharing that fact with the Swedes, crack on. He was probably not markedly worse than the likes of Erik Axel Karlfeldt.
I'm sure you are a peerless literary critic, so I'd love to see you justifying your claim that Burns is a talentless twat. He wrote a lot so I suppose there is a variety in terms of quality but his best work in my opinion stands up against anyone's.
He's not talentless, but he is not a front rank poet. Jolly good second division player, I'd say
I do love "John Anderson, my Jo"
Edit: I've just seen a website that compares Burns to Betjeman, and that is splendidly accurate. Both are beloved for portraying aspects of their nation, both are gifted at lyrical rhyme, and easy to remember - yet neither touches anything like the heights of a Keats, Larkin, Hopkins, Plath, Milton, Frost, et al
It's a matter of taste I suppose, and I'm probably more into quite direct rather than overly reflective writing, but I think there is both power and subtlety as well as striking and beautiful language in poems like for a' that or to a louse. I'm certainly not an expert on poetry but my mum is and she rates Burns highly. I think a lot of people fall into the trap of seeing Burns as the poetic equivalent of a shortbread tin, but there's a lot more to him than that.
He is a great poet, witty, wry and romantic.
Burns Night conveniently fills a need for a late January booze up with friends. I always celebrate it despite my Scottish ancestry being rather dilute.
Part of the problem is that he often wrote in Scots and a lot of people aren't familiar with the grammar and vocabulary. But that's their loss.
There were huge tensions within his personality and within his reputation, even in his own time. Which makes him an interesting guy. It's no coincidence there are surprisingly few statues to him, given the timing of the general Victorian statue mania and the fact that one needed money to put the things up. Christopher Whatley wrote an interesting book 'Immortal memory' on the issue.
Arguably, the best comparison would be with Kipling. Although I personally think Burns' output was overall better than Kipling's.
Would it ? Kipling was a very different kind of writer. And he was a poet of empire rather than exclusively England.
Kipling was a great kids’ writer first, a decent (if stodgy) novelist and prose writer second, and a pleasing illustrator third. His poetry is cringeworthy; the poetic equivalent of Beryl Cook or Jack Vettriano - bafflingly popular pastiche.
Lest we forget of course, he does make exceedingly good cakes.
Killing is rather out of fashion because of being so embedded in ideas of late Victorian Empire. Great writer nonetheless to get an understanding of the mentality of the Times. The past is a foreign country.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
A "generation" in politics is generally considered to be a group of people who come of age and enter politics at a similar time. The length of a generation in politics can vary depending on a number of factors, such as the average lifespan of individuals, the rate of political turnover, and the rate of social and political change. In general, a generation in politics might last anywhere from a few decades to several generations, and the exact length of a generation is difficult to determine. Some people might consider a generation in politics to be a group of people who enter politics within a certain time period, such as 10 or 20 years, while others might consider a generation to be a group of people who share similar experiences and political views. Ultimately, the concept of a generation in politics is somewhat subjective and can be defined in different ways.
Once, there was a journalist named Cyclefree who was commissioned to write a piece comparing three activities: watching the cricket, feeding the birds, and rubbing poo in your face like that there IanB2.
Cyclefree wasn't sure what to make of the assignment, but she knew she had to deliver a high-quality article. She decided to start by researching each activity and learning more about them.
First, Cyclefree looked into watching the cricket. She learned that cricket is a popular sport played between two teams of eleven players each. The teams take turns batting and fielding, and the goal is to score more runs than the other team. Cyclefree also learned that cricket has a rich history and a large following around the world, particularly in countries where the sport is more popular, such as England and Australia.
Next, Cyclefree researched feeding the birds. She learned that many people enjoy feeding birds as a way to attract them to their gardens and backyards. There are many different types of bird feeders and birdseed available, and people often find it rewarding to watch the birds come and go.
Finally, Cyclefree turned her attention to the strange and mysterious activity of rubbing poo in your face like that there IanB2. She was unable to find any information or examples of this activity, and she began to wonder if it was even a real thing. She decided to contact IanB2 and ask for more details.
When IanB2 replied to Cyclefree's email, he explained that rubbing poo in your face was a private hobby he did with his only friend, a dog. He apologized for any confusion and wished Cyclefree luck with her article.
Despite IanB2's explanation, Cyclefree was determined to include the activity of rubbing poo in her article. She decided to approach it from a humorous angle, and she wrote a satirical piece comparing the absurdity of rubbing poo in your face with the more mainstream activities of watching the cricket and feeding the birds.
The moderator of website politicalbetting.com was impressed with Cyclefree's unique take on the assignment, and the article was published on the website the following week. It quickly became a popular and controversial piece, with many readers expressing shock and amusement at the idea of rubbing poo in your face.
In the end, Cyclefree decided to try rubbing poo on her own face, and to her surprise, she found that she enjoyed it. She concluded her article by encouraging others to give it a try and see for themselves the strange and wondrous effects of rubbing poo on your face.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
Which is why as long as we Tories are in power we will never allow indyref2.
If Starmer allows indyref2 his problem to win it with devomax etc
As you say, no Conservative government will allow another independence referendum? But why not? To avoid distressing the Queen? Because they fear they cannot win an election in a Scotland-less Britain? Just this year, we have had three Prime Ministers because the Conservative Party, this Conservative Party, will do almost anything in return for power. Why not an independence referendum if, after the general election, the choice is that or opposition?
As we are the Conservative and Unionist party. Even if a Labour government granted indyref2 we would still back the Union.
If it was lost however we would switch overnight to being an English Nationalist party, cancel all transfers to Scotland, start erecting the border posts from Cumbria to Northumberland and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks.
Even if won again I expect we would also switch to back an English parliament given Holyrood would likely have been offered devomax to ensure No won
Would there be watchtowers with machine guns as well?
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
Which is why as long as we Tories are in power we will never allow indyref2.
If Starmer allows indyref2 his problem to win it with devomax etc
As you say, no Conservative government will allow another independence referendum? But why not? To avoid distressing the Queen? Because they fear they cannot win an election in a Scotland-less Britain? Just this year, we have had three Prime Ministers because the Conservative Party, this Conservative Party, will do almost anything in return for power. Why not an independence referendum if, after the general election, the choice is that or opposition?
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
Not on their Twitter feed. They have the one from 23rd November showing 50% support for the SNP instead. What is your source?
Incidentally I note you were unable to source your claims about vaccination rates.
It's on Wiki.
Then what’s the source? Saying ‘it’s on Wiki’ and leaving it at that does not address the question. It would be like saying ‘Richard III never murdered his nephews’ and linking to an article edited by Johanna Haminga.
If it’s in Wikipedia it should have a source. If there is no source, perhaps it’s like the rest of Stuart’s output that is, made up.
There is a source, on Wiki. If that's not good enough, you'll have to lay out the the ydoethur 12 factor verification threshold just so we know in advance.
Finally, a source, and a load of silly abuse for daring to ask for it despite the fact the initial poster has demonstrated he is a habitual liar and Wikipedia is infamously untrustworthy. The latter par for the course from the current Nationalist movement, sadly. The former anything but, so we make incremental progress.
I am puzzled however as to why it’s only available on the Twitter feed of a different organisation from the pollsters with no tables and nothing to say who commissioned it. Will be interesting to see that data which will presumably be coming through today.
‘A load of silly abuse’? You appear not to have put on several layers of skin this morning.
There have been a number of occasions in the past where people have taken numbers out of context in polling and published them to support a viewpoint. This seems to have happened in just about every political direction. Both here on PB and in the wider world.
Which is why we like to see a link to a poll, and from there a link to the supporting data, all provided by the polling company.
Wikipedia is useful in direct opposite proportion to the level of advocacy and immediacy of the issue. So articles on contemporary controversial politics tend to be shaped by partisans of one side or the other.
To be fair, the more important articles get enough people fighting from all sides to kind of balance out. But there are many, many places where details are simply wrong.
Apparently* teachers find this both annoying and amusing. Annoying because they find pupils learning untruths. Amusing because they can easily spot some of the “copy and pasta from Wikipedia, then try and re-write the English to make it not look copied”.
*From speaking to teachers at both my daughters schools over the years.
They rewrite the wikicopies?
Gosh, that sounds like a really good school. And better than some DfE publications.
This was at the local Free School Primary (amongst others), which was started by a very determined Head. She believed that she could get results as good as the local private schools - one of which she had gone to, herself, on a full bursary.
While this did cause some frank discussions, the results were impressive. So the children were trying the wiki copy thing from about 9. By the time they’d left, they’d mostly given up due to detection. The teachers seemed to think it was simply part of the growing up process - tried to use it to explain the difference between copying and using sources.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
Which is why as long as we Tories are in power we will never allow indyref2.
If Starmer allows indyref2 his problem to win it with devomax etc
As you say, no Conservative government will allow another independence referendum? But why not? To avoid distressing the Queen? Because they fear they cannot win an election in a Scotland-less Britain? Just this year, we have had three Prime Ministers because the Conservative Party, this Conservative Party, will do almost anything in return for power. Why not an independence referendum if, after the general election, the choice is that or opposition?
As we are the Conservative and Unionist party. Even if a Labour government granted indyref2 we would still back the Union.
If it was lost however we would switch overnight to being an English Nationalist party, cancel all transfers to Scotland, start erecting the border posts from Cumbria to Northumberland and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks.
Even if won again I expect we would also switch to back an English parliament given Holyrood would likely have been offered devomax to ensure No won
"We are Unionist because we are Unionist and nobody likes us and we don't care."
I presume this indypolling is off the back of the Supreme Court's "insult to Scotland" ruling.
Worth noting it's also a free hit now that such a poll can't be held.
Entirely expected.
It can be held. The only obstructions are UKG and Westminster. Which the court case showed very clearly. So you see ...
It can't be held. Hence the backlash.
Must hurt.
Although of course with Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket there is a danger, were the Conservatives not to win the next two General Elections.
I expect Starmer to grant indyref2 if Labour win within 5 to 10 years even if they got a majority.
As I said they would use Brown's devomax plans as the basis for their offer to Scotland.
It certainly won't happen under a Conservative government though
Starmer cannot be allowed to destroy the Union. Whatever it takes, the Labour Party, with or without their SNP backers, must be stopped from entering into Government. Only the Conservatives can save the Union.
There is a very real existential threat to the United Kingdom. Very troubling.
New Scottish independence poll, Find Out Now 1-8 Dec (+/- 23-26 Mar 21 / +/- IndyRef1 2014):
Yes 54% (+2 / +9) No 46% (-2 / -9)
As relevant as polling on Santa's reindeer at present given the Supreme Court confirmed the UK government and Westminster can refuse indyref2 indefinitely. This Tory government will certainly never allow indyref2.
Though really little change from the 50% 50% before anyway excluding undecideds
A supposed “Unionist” doesn’t care if people support the Union.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
I care about respecting the 2014 referendum once in a generation result unlike you Nationalists.
Which is why as long as we Tories are in power we will never allow indyref2.
If Starmer allows indyref2 his problem to win it with devomax etc
As you say, no Conservative government will allow another independence referendum? But why not? To avoid distressing the Queen? Because they fear they cannot win an election in a Scotland-less Britain? Just this year, we have had three Prime Ministers because the Conservative Party, this Conservative Party, will do almost anything in return for power. Why not an independence referendum if, after the general election, the choice is that or opposition?
As we are the Conservative and Unionist party. Even if a Labour government granted indyref2 we would still back the Union.
If it was lost however we would switch overnight to being an English Nationalist party, cancel all transfers to Scotland, start erecting the border posts from Cumbria to Northumberland and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks.
Even if won again I expect we would also switch to back an English parliament given Holyrood would likely have been offered devomax to ensure No won
Would there be watchtowers with machine guns as well?
The soldiers wouldbe too busy manning the machine gun posts at Dover and Fairlight and running the armoured trains on the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway.
The second save by the Argentina keeper was really something. The first wasn’t a great pen, but incredible reactions (and powerful wrists) on the second.
What a day of football this has been. Just wonderful. I love this game.
Fair play to FIFA. They have secured themselves an incredible tournament
Everything bad is forgotten as the soccer amazes. No one cares about Qatar or migrants or Pride Armbands or any of that any more. Give us bread and brilliant circuses
I don’t think that’s true. The prevailing view that I see (though tbh that is fairly small seeing as I’ve jacked in social media) is “great tournament, shame about the hosts”. I think I said summat similar on the last thread.
And really the quality of the tournament has nowt to do with FIFA. It’s down to the players. It is bloody good though. More to come tomorrow.
I'm not really giving FIFA credit. I reckon they just got lucky
Something about the early winter timing has amped the footie. Dunno. But it is great. And for this reason the negatives WILL be largely forgotten
FIFA must be eyeing up S E Asia. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. All football mad yet no sniff of a Cup ever, and home to 500m people
You Brits who are not AWOL sunning your pale, frail carcasses on some sun-drenched rock (or beach), are prisoners in your own country, confined indoors by compressed hours of daylight under gray skies with soggy shoes outdoors.
AND you have no Thanksgiving (feeling nothing much to feel thankful for) to take the late-fall/early-winter edge off.
Not true. The Scots have St Andrew's Day.
And Hogmanay. And 2nd January. And Burns Night.
If 2 Jan counts at all it counts as part of Hogmanay. Burns was a talentless twat, not in the top 100 of British poets. If you enjoy sharing that fact with the Swedes, crack on. He was probably not markedly worse than the likes of Erik Axel Karlfeldt.
I'm sure you are a peerless literary critic, so I'd love to see you justifying your claim that Burns is a talentless twat. He wrote a lot so I suppose there is a variety in terms of quality but his best work in my opinion stands up against anyone's.
He's not talentless, but he is not a front rank poet. Jolly good second division player, I'd say
I do love "John Anderson, my Jo"
Edit: I've just seen a website that compares Burns to Betjeman, and that is splendidly accurate. Both are beloved for portraying aspects of their nation, both are gifted at lyrical rhyme, and easy to remember - yet neither touches anything like the heights of a Keats, Larkin, Hopkins, Plath, Milton, Frost, et al
It's a matter of taste I suppose, and I'm probably more into quite direct rather than overly reflective writing, but I think there is both power and subtlety as well as striking and beautiful language in poems like for a' that or to a louse. I'm certainly not an expert on poetry but my mum is and she rates Burns highly. I think a lot of people fall into the trap of seeing Burns as the poetic equivalent of a shortbread tin, but there's a lot more to him than that.
He is a great poet, witty, wry and romantic.
Burns Night conveniently fills a need for a late January booze up with friends. I always celebrate it despite my Scottish ancestry being rather dilute.
Part of the problem is that he often wrote in Scots and a lot of people aren't familiar with the grammar and vocabulary. But that's their loss.
There were huge tensions within his personality and within his reputation, even in his own time. Which makes him an interesting guy. It's no coincidence there are surprisingly few statues to him, given the timing of the general Victorian statue mania and the fact that one needed money to put the things up. Christopher Whatley wrote an interesting book 'Immortal memory' on the issue.
Arguably, the best comparison would be with Kipling. Although I personally think Burns' output was overall better than Kipling's.
Would it ? Kipling was a very different kind of writer. And he was a poet of empire rather than exclusively England.
Kipling was a great kids’ writer first, a decent (if stodgy) novelist and prose writer second, and a pleasing illustrator third. His poetry is cringeworthy; the poetic equivalent of Beryl Cook or Jack Vettriano - bafflingly popular pastiche.
Lest we forget of course, he does make exceedingly good cakes.
Killing is rather out of fashion because of being so embedded in ideas of late Victorian Empire. Great writer nonetheless to get an understanding of the mentality of the Times. The past is a foreign country.
Conrad is the great writer of colonialism for my money. The outsider thing.
The second save by the Argentina keeper was really something. The first wasn’t a great pen, but incredible reactions (and powerful wrists) on the second.
What a day of football this has been. Just wonderful. I love this game.
Fair play to FIFA. They have secured themselves an incredible tournament
Everything bad is forgotten as the soccer amazes. No one cares about Qatar or migrants or Pride Armbands or any of that any more. Give us bread and brilliant circuses
I don’t think that’s true. The prevailing view that I see (though tbh that is fairly small seeing as I’ve jacked in social media) is “great tournament, shame about the hosts”. I think I said summat similar on the last thread.
And really the quality of the tournament has nowt to do with FIFA. It’s down to the players. It is bloody good though. More to come tomorrow.
I'm not really giving FIFA credit. I reckon they just got lucky
Something about the early winter timing has amped the footie. Dunno. But it is great. And for this reason the negatives WILL be largely forgotten
FIFA must be eyeing up S E Asia. Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc. All football mad yet no sniff of a Cup ever, and home to 500m people
You Brits who are not AWOL sunning your pale, frail carcasses on some sun-drenched rock (or beach), are prisoners in your own country, confined indoors by compressed hours of daylight under gray skies with soggy shoes outdoors.
AND you have no Thanksgiving (feeling nothing much to feel thankful for) to take the late-fall/early-winter edge off.
Not true. The Scots have St Andrew's Day.
And Hogmanay. And 2nd January. And Burns Night.
If 2 Jan counts at all it counts as part of Hogmanay. Burns was a talentless twat, not in the top 100 of British poets. If you enjoy sharing that fact with the Swedes, crack on. He was probably not markedly worse than the likes of Erik Axel Karlfeldt.
I'm sure you are a peerless literary critic, so I'd love to see you justifying your claim that Burns is a talentless twat. He wrote a lot so I suppose there is a variety in terms of quality but his best work in my opinion stands up against anyone's.
He's not talentless, but he is not a front rank poet. Jolly good second division player, I'd say
I do love "John Anderson, my Jo"
Edit: I've just seen a website that compares Burns to Betjeman, and that is splendidly accurate. Both are beloved for portraying aspects of their nation, both are gifted at lyrical rhyme, and easy to remember - yet neither touches anything like the heights of a Keats, Larkin, Hopkins, Plath, Milton, Frost, et al
It's a matter of taste I suppose, and I'm probably more into quite direct rather than overly reflective writing, but I think there is both power and subtlety as well as striking and beautiful language in poems like for a' that or to a louse. I'm certainly not an expert on poetry but my mum is and she rates Burns highly. I think a lot of people fall into the trap of seeing Burns as the poetic equivalent of a shortbread tin, but there's a lot more to him than that.
He is a great poet, witty, wry and romantic.
Burns Night conveniently fills a need for a late January booze up with friends. I always celebrate it despite my Scottish ancestry being rather dilute.
Part of the problem is that he often wrote in Scots and a lot of people aren't familiar with the grammar and vocabulary. But that's their loss.
There were huge tensions within his personality and within his reputation, even in his own time. Which makes him an interesting guy. It's no coincidence there are surprisingly few statues to him, given the timing of the general Victorian statue mania and the fact that one needed money to put the things up. Christopher Whatley wrote an interesting book 'Immortal memory' on the issue.
Arguably, the best comparison would be with Kipling. Although I personally think Burns' output was overall better than Kipling's.
Would it ? Kipling was a very different kind of writer. And he was a poet of empire rather than exclusively England.
Kipling was a great kids’ writer first, a decent (if stodgy) novelist and prose writer second, and a pleasing illustrator third. His poetry is cringeworthy; the poetic equivalent of Beryl Cook or Jack Vettriano - bafflingly popular pastiche.
Lest we forget of course, he does make exceedingly good cakes.
Killing is rather out of fashion because of being so embedded in ideas of late Victorian Empire. Great writer nonetheless to get an understanding of the mentality of the Times. The past is a foreign country.
I presume this indypolling is off the back of the Supreme Court's "insult to Scotland" ruling.
Worth noting it's also a free hit now that such a poll can't be held.
Entirely expected.
It can be held. The only obstructions are UKG and Westminster. Which the court case showed very clearly. So you see ...
It can't be held. Hence the backlash.
Must hurt.
Although of course with Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket there is a danger, were the Conservatives not to win the next two General Elections.
I expect Starmer to grant indyref2 if Labour win within 5 to 10 years even if they got a majority.
As I said they would use Brown's devomax plans as the basis for their offer to Scotland.
It certainly won't happen under a Conservative government though
Starmer cannot be allowed to destroy the Union. Whatever it takes, the Labour Party, with or without their SNP backers, must be stopped from entering into Government. Only the Conservatives can save the Union.
There is a very real existential threat to the United Kingdom. Very troubling.
Yes, proposing a coup is an undoubted existential threat to the United Kingdom. 100% agree with you on that.
I presume this indypolling is off the back of the Supreme Court's "insult to Scotland" ruling.
Worth noting it's also a free hit now that such a poll can't be held.
Entirely expected.
It can be held. The only obstructions are UKG and Westminster. Which the court case showed very clearly. So you see ...
It can't be held. Hence the backlash.
Must hurt.
Although of course with Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket there is a danger, were the Conservatives not to win the next two General Elections.
I expect Starmer to grant indyref2 if Labour win within 5 to 10 years even if they got a majority.
As I said they would use Brown's devomax plans as the basis for their offer to Scotland.
It certainly won't happen under a Conservative government though
Starmer cannot be allowed to destroy the Union. Whatever it takes, the Labour Party, with or without their SNP backers, must be stopped from entering into Government. Only the Conservatives can save the Union.
There is a very real existential threat to the United Kingdom. Very troubling.
However only a UK Labour government can probably win an indyref2 too, hence why Unionist Tories should never allow one as long as they are in power
Andrew Neil on Trump: ..it does look as if Trump’s days are numbered. Republicans outside his cult core are tiring of his schtick. His status as a loser is becoming more imprinted on Republican minds. A few brave party voices are now attacking him openly. More will follow as he strays into even wilder territory to keep his face on the news channels. There is a growing desire simply to move on.
The wider benefits would be historic. If Trump is not the Republican candidate, the pressure on President Biden not to run again would be irresistible. So Trump’s departure from the scene would herald a much-needed and overdue generational shift in American politics, on the Left and Right, both wings for too long dominated by the Trump-Biden generation.
Far from being the Comeback Kid, Trump would be relegated to Yesterday’s Man. He won’t like that. But it would give him more time to deal with all the lawsuits and investigations currently pressing in on him.
Yet Biden beats De Santis 42% to 40% with RedfieldWilton but ties Trump 41% each
I presume this indypolling is off the back of the Supreme Court's "insult to Scotland" ruling.
Worth noting it's also a free hit now that such a poll can't be held.
Entirely expected.
It can be held. The only obstructions are UKG and Westminster. Which the court case showed very clearly. So you see ...
It can't be held. Hence the backlash.
Must hurt.
Although of course with Starmer in Sturgeon's pocket there is a danger, were the Conservatives not to win the next two General Elections.
I thouight Mr Starmer was supposed to be in the Unions' pocket yesterday?
That's Sir Keirto us plebs.
At least I'm showing him a modicum of respect, unlike the previous poster. While bearing Burns in mind:
A Prince can mak a belted knight, A marquis, duke, an a that! But an honest man’s aboon his might – Guid faith, he mauna fa that! For a that, an a that, Their dignities, an a that, The pith o Sense an pride o Worth Are higher rank than a that.
What I said at the time. Just because their objectives were ridiculous and absurd does not mean that they were not organised and serious. Look at the Mullahs in Iran. Completely bonkers yet they have had power for 50 years now. America even elected their nutter and are supposedly thinking about doing it again (they won't).
I presume this indypolling is off the back of the Supreme Court's "insult to Scotland" ruling.
Worth noting it's also a free hit now that such a poll can't be held.
Entirely expected.
It can be held. The only obstructions are UKG and Westminster. Which the court case showed very clearly. So you see ...
It can't be held. Hence the backlash.
Must hurt.
You're missing the point. Deliberately obtuse, I hope not? The court case was revealing (to some - I fully expected it). There is no inherent reason in law. It's all administrative decisions and recent Acts of the Westminster Parliament: all very contingent.
Comments
Only Trump keeps the MAGA cult fully on board, but he repels other voters. We've seen the same effect (to for less grisly reasons) with BoJo for the Conservatives.
Has RDS said anything about the insurrection?
Some consistent polling in favour of Indy ensues.
Who could have predicted?
However, thank you for finally providing the source, with a bit of prompting. After all, it is what I asked for. As I said, interesting to see what it was and I will be intrigued to see more details which surely will be emerging over the next day or two.
If you spent some time making the Union less unpopular then the Union might be on steadier ground.
https://twitter.com/peterbakernyt/status/1601003241516343298
Former President Trump appears to have mentioned my brother #PaulWhelan's wrongful detention more in the last 24 hours than he did in the 2 years of his presidency in which Paul was held hostage by #Russia (zero). I don't suggest he cares now any more than he did then (zero)
https://twitter.com/davidpwhelan/status/1601219405744328706
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/chatgpt-openai-artificial-intelligence-writing-ethics/672386/
ChatGPT Is Dumber Than You Think
Actually quite an interesting read
Which is why we like to see a link to a poll, and from there a link to the supporting data, all provided by the polling company.
Wikipedia is useful in direct opposite proportion to the level of advocacy and immediacy of the issue. So articles on contemporary controversial politics tend to be shaped by partisans of one side or the other.
To be fair, the more important articles get enough people fighting from all sides to kind of balance out. But there are many, many places where details are simply wrong.
Apparently* teachers find this both annoying and amusing. Annoying because they find pupils learning untruths. Amusing because they can easily spot some of the “copy and pasta from Wikipedia, then try and re-write the English to make it not look copied”.
*From speaking to teachers at both my daughters schools over the years.
It's no surprise that the MOTD presenter is the new face of Next, the ultimate everyman retailer. Ahead of England v France, we explain why
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/people/gary-linekers-clothes-redolent-type-british-man-know/ (£££)
The Telegraph has its finger on the pulse. Either that or its advertising department is hoping for some Next ads.
There were huge tensions within his personality and within his reputation, even in his own time. Which makes him an interesting guy. It's no coincidence there are surprisingly few statues to him, given the timing of the general Victorian statue mania and the fact that one needed money to put the things up. Christopher Whatley wrote an interesting book 'Immortal memory' on the issue.
https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/full/10.3366/jshs.2019.0280
Although Pakistan beating up the umpire is a, shall we say, novel approach to trying to take wickets!
Worth noting it's also a free hit now that such a poll can't be held.
Entirely expected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63927054
I mention this as further evidence that the BBC's overnight staff are interns with no news sense, mindlessly following American news channels.
Gosh, that sounds like a really good school. And better than some DfE publications.
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1601170999944568833
Arman Shuraev, a public figure and professional journalist from Kazakhstan, replied to arrogant speech and threats of Russian ambassador in Kazakhstan, Borodavkin.
Russia is losing its influence among its neighbors and is rightly viewed as a threat.
“If you want to see Nazis and fascists, look in the mirror.”
Of course, if you look hard enough amongst all hangers on and relatives you might find one or two suspect remarks, as you will if you trawl the gutter of the Internet, but the idea the royal family has racism or "structural" racism if complete and total nonsense.
While cricket is believed to have originated in England, there is evidence that the game was influenced by earlier bat-and-ball games that were played in the Low Countries (also known as the Netherlands and Belgium). These games, which were popular among children and adults alike, were likely similar to cricket in terms of the basic principles and rules of the game. The first recorded cricket match was played in the 16th century in the Weald, a region of southeast England. It is likely that the English version of cricket evolved from these earlier games, although the exact origins of the sport remain unclear.
Putin must be spitting feathers that Lukshenko and Tokayev are not supporting his Special Military Operation as he would wish.
Mind you, he himself has done some silly things in the past. A couple of years back he let two of his stooges in the Duma say that Kazakhstan was 'leased' from Russia and would eventually return to it. The Kazakhs were not amused. I imagine they are less amused now!
Must hurt.
Different place, different standards. The Netflix thing isn't really aimed at us.
Though the response of the British media to criticism of the British media shows that M+H may have a bit of a point.
Which is why as long as we Tories are in power we will never allow indyref2.
If Starmer allows indyref2 his problem to win it with devomax etc
Yes
All adults 45%
Remainers 63%
Leavers 32%
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1601308851592392704?t=MTLst537suJdOGW7FMAGDw&s=19
I started to know The Atlantic through their excellent Covid articles, but there is so much more. An annual subscription online is a good value present for anyone with an interest in good writing. I can think of no British publication that comes close. Perhaps the FT weekend edition.
Whenever you believe in something strong enough, and believe it's everywhere, you will find it.
Kipling was a very different kind of writer. And he was a poet of empire rather than exclusively England.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11523131/US-journalist-dies-days-detained-wearing-rainbow-shirt-Qatar.html
Cyclefree wasn't sure what to make of the assignment, but she knew she had to deliver a high-quality article. She decided to start by researching each activity and learning more about them.
First, Cyclefree looked into watching the cricket. She learned that cricket is a popular sport played between two teams of eleven players each. The teams take turns batting and fielding, and the goal is to score more runs than the other team. Cyclefree also learned that cricket has a rich history and a large following around the world, particularly in countries where the sport is more popular, such as England and Australia.
Next, Cyclefree researched feeding the birds. She learned that many people enjoy feeding birds as a way to attract them to their gardens and backyards. There are many different types of bird feeders and birdseed available, and people often find it rewarding to watch the birds come and go.
Finally, Cyclefree turned her attention to the strange and mysterious activity of rubbing poo in your face like that there IanB2. She was unable to find any information or examples of this activity, and she began to wonder if it was even a real thing. She decided to contact IanB2 and ask for more details.
When IanB2 replied to Cyclefree's email, he explained that rubbing poo in your face was a private hobby he did with his only friend, a dog. He apologized for any confusion and wished Cyclefree luck with her article.
Despite IanB2's explanation, Cyclefree was determined to include the activity of rubbing poo in her article. She decided to approach it from a humorous angle, and she wrote a satirical piece comparing the absurdity of rubbing poo in your face with the more mainstream activities of watching the cricket and feeding the birds.
The moderator of website politicalbetting.com was impressed with Cyclefree's unique take on the assignment, and the article was published on the website the following week. It quickly became a popular and controversial piece, with many readers expressing shock and amusement at the idea of rubbing poo in your face.
In the end, Cyclefree decided to try rubbing poo on her own face, and to her surprise, she found that she enjoyed it. She concluded her article by encouraging others to give it a try and see for themselves the strange and wondrous effects of rubbing poo on your face.
As I said they would use Brown's devomax plans as the basis for their offer to Scotland.
It certainly won't happen under a Conservative government though
France 2.6
Draw 3.35
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/en/football/fifa-world-cup/england-v-france-betting-31951634
England 2.2
France 1.81
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.207257426
Lest we forget of course, he does make exceedingly good cakes.
If it was lost however we would switch overnight to being an English Nationalist party, cancel all transfers to Scotland, start erecting the border posts from Cumbria to Northumberland and take as hard a line as possible with the SNP in Scexit talks.
Even if won again I expect we would also switch to back an English parliament given Holyrood would likely have been offered devomax to ensure No won
I really enjoy a Burns night. Its usually funny with plenty of drink and decent food. What's not to like?
What you soooo carefully left out is that only 26% of all adults said no, with12% DK and presumably the rest were DNR.
Or is it Chat GP?
While this did cause some frank discussions, the results were impressive. So the children were trying the wiki copy thing from about 9. By the time they’d left, they’d mostly given up due to detection. The teachers seemed to think it was simply part of the growing up process - tried to use it to explain the difference between copying and using sources.
The private schools seemed similar
Something missing in the logic there.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/09/celebrity-chef-suspects-germany-rightwing-coup-plot-reichsburger
There is a very real existential threat to the United Kingdom. Very troubling.
MPs are being held to a much higher transparency standard than those who wield the most power. This is bonkers
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/10/government-uk-ministers-gifts-mps-standards-chris-bryant
A Prince can mak a belted knight,
A marquis, duke, an a that!
But an honest man’s aboon his might –
Guid faith, he mauna fa that!
For a that, an a that,
Their dignities, an a that,
The pith o Sense an pride o Worth
Are higher rank than a that.