I hadn't come across this before - but have enjoyed a lot of motorway/road chat on here so thought it was worth a link (with apols if it's eye-rollingly familiar)
The climate change policy review commissioned by Liz Truss, aimed at making it more business focused, concludes that we should be accelerating not delaying efforts to achieve net zero. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057
Thanks @Nigelb for drawing this to my attention. I see no evidence that Chris Skidmore has provided to back up his assertions, and I am afraid I have no desire to read his report, though of course forcing everyone to scrap their boiler would no doubt 'create jobs' in the crudest sense.
There are some green schemes I do support - tidal is a sensible and reliable form of power generation, and we should go for it. If he's getting behind that, good on him. If it's more mindless ramping of solar and wind for the UK, meh.
I hadn't come across this before - but have enjoyed a lot of motorway/road chat on here so thought it was worth a link (with apols if it's eye-rollingly familiar)
We would be living about 100m from one of those if it had been built. The train to work goes past the brutalist barrier estate they built to run alongside it, one of the only parts of the scheme to be built. Completely insane.
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
His problem is one of self-awareness; he is aware that (in Belbin terms) he is the group ‘Plant’, but unaware that his role is to throw in a few ideas and then stand back while the adults in the room exercise some judgement.
That's one of the reasons Britain in general, and the centre-right in particular, is in the pickle it's in.
Gove and Johnson are both capable op-ed writers. It's a good thing that the Spectator exists to publish an unfiltered stream-of-conciousness from a right wing viewpoint. But their stuff needs filtering before it becomes a programme for government. For every good idea, there are multiple ideas that won't work and ideas that, even if they are workable, aren't good in the cold light of day.
For various reasons, the government is now run by Belbin plants, and the necessary filters between them and the levers of power have been removed.
Every great thinker needs an Alanbrooke.
Perhaps the forgotten aspect of Churchill was that you could say no to his ideas. And he would actually drop them, if given good reasons. And then oppose others coming up with same idea.
For example, the 9.2” “Ultra” Heavy cruisers proposed in 1940.
What is the explanation for Anzio? Plenty of highly-placed people told him it was NOT a good idea. Yet he refused to give it up, kept pushing and pushing and pushing for it.
NOT among his better WW2 decisions. Along with Leros fiasco.
The climate change policy review commissioned by Liz Truss, aimed at making it more business focused, concludes that we should be accelerating not delaying efforts to achieve net zero. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057
Thanks @Nigelb for drawing this to my attention. I see no evidence that Chris Skidmore has provided to back up his assertions, and I am afraid I have no desire to read his report, though of course forcing everyone to scrap their boiler would no doubt 'create jobs' in the crudest sense.
There are some green schemes I do support - tidal is a sensible and reliable form of power generation, and we should go for it. If he's getting behind that, good on him. If it's more mindless ramping of solar and wind for the UK, meh.
Just questioning the case for nuclear power instead of renewables would make a change. One of the very first things Sunak did was to confirm he supported Boris's inane desire to build more nuclear power stations. Which might help in about 20 years time - at about three times the cost. Unless you ride completely roughshod over planning objections.
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
His problem is one of self-awareness; he is aware that (in Belbin terms) he is the group ‘Plant’, but unaware that his role is to throw in a few ideas and then stand back while the adults in the room exercise some judgement.
That's one of the reasons Britain in general, and the centre-right in particular, is in the pickle it's in.
Gove and Johnson are both capable op-ed writers. It's a good thing that the Spectator exists to publish an unfiltered stream-of-conciousness from a right wing viewpoint. But their stuff needs filtering before it becomes a programme for government. For every good idea, there are multiple ideas that won't work and ideas that, even if they are workable, aren't good in the cold light of day.
For various reasons, the government is now run by Belbin plants, and the necessary filters between them and the levers of power have been removed.
Every great thinker needs an Alanbrooke.
Perhaps the forgotten aspect of Churchill was that you could say no to his ideas. And he would actually drop them, if given good reasons. And then oppose others coming up with same idea.
For example, the 9.2” “Ultra” Heavy cruisers proposed in 1940.
I hadn't come across this before - but have enjoyed a lot of motorway/road chat on here so thought it was worth a link (with apols if it's eye-rollingly familiar)
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
His problem is one of self-awareness; he is aware that (in Belbin terms) he is the group ‘Plant’, but unaware that his role is to throw in a few ideas and then stand back while the adults in the room exercise some judgement.
That's one of the reasons Britain in general, and the centre-right in particular, is in the pickle it's in.
Gove and Johnson are both capable op-ed writers. It's a good thing that the Spectator exists to publish an unfiltered stream-of-conciousness from a right wing viewpoint. But their stuff needs filtering before it becomes a programme for government. For every good idea, there are multiple ideas that won't work and ideas that, even if they are workable, aren't good in the cold light of day.
For various reasons, the government is now run by Belbin plants, and the necessary filters between them and the levers of power have been removed.
Every great thinker needs an Alanbrooke.
Perhaps the forgotten aspect of Churchill was that you could say no to his ideas. And he would actually drop them, if given good reasons. And then oppose others coming up with same idea.
For example, the 9.2” “Ultra” Heavy cruisers proposed in 1940.
What is the explanation for Anzio? Plenty of highly-placed people told him it was NOT a good idea. Yet he refused to give it up, kept pushing and pushing and pushing for it.
NOT among his better WW2 decisions. Along with Leros fiasco.
The Dragoon (originally Anvil) landings in southern France August '44 could have happened in Greece if Churchill had his way.
I hadn't come across this before - but have enjoyed a lot of motorway/road chat on here so thought it was worth a link (with apols if it's eye-rollingly familiar)
Yeah - it's quite an impressive body of information. I was surprised I hadn't come across it before.
I lived as a child in south east London and I remember a wide strip of land at the back of some houses in West Wickham which was never developed. I was later told that land had been set aside for Ringway 3 in the 1960s and therefore couldn't be developed.
The climate change policy review commissioned by Liz Truss, aimed at making it more business focused, concludes that we should be accelerating not delaying efforts to achieve net zero. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057
Thanks @Nigelb for drawing this to my attention. I see no evidence that Chris Skidmore has provided to back up his assertions, and I am afraid I have no desire to read his report, though of course forcing everyone to scrap their boiler would no doubt 'create jobs' in the crudest sense.
There are some green schemes I do support - tidal is a sensible and reliable form of power generation, and we should go for it. If he's getting behind that, good on him. If it's more mindless ramping of solar and wind for the UK, meh.
Just questioning the case for nuclear power instead of renewables would make a change. One of the very first things Sunak did was to confirm he supported Boris's inane desire to build more nuclear power stations. Which might help in about 20 years time - at about three times the cost. Unless you ride completely roughshod over planning objections.
Agree. What irks me about nuclear is that the same people who are horrified about Russia, and what's happened at the Ukrainian nuclear power plant, are happy to see us commission what are essentially terrorist/invader targets, that also need to buy their fuel from Russia. To say nothing of being built by the Chinese (or worse, the French )
I'm not dismissing the idea but I do think there's a security dimension that is being blithely ignored.
By contrast, tidal seems ultra clean and ultra safe.
Fackin hell, Twitter is still an education. An account I follow which I thought was a pretty nerdy and respectable one on WWI battlefield topography and archaeology has liked the Andrew Bridgen tweet threatening to sue Hancock for calling him an antisemite.
Bridgen v Hancock would of course be the shittest Alien v Predator ever, and therefore hugely entertaining.
Is he an anti-semite? His comments can perhaps be deemed inappropriate and insensitive, but they aren't anti-semitic in content. If he was trying to belittle the holocaust it's an extremely oblique way to do it. I thought Sunak's response in parliament majoring on this angle of criticism was wrong. I think Sunak should have said that his comments had no scientific basis and that vaccines had been tested (which they have) and had enabled the UK to look beyond covid.
JTA.org - British parliament member booted from Conservative Party after comparing COVID-19 vaccination to Holocaust
. . . . “Andrew Bridgen has crossed a line, causing great offense in the process,” said Simon Hart, the Conservative Party’s chief whip. “As a nation we should be very proud of what has been achieved through the vaccine program. The vaccine is the best defense against COVID that we have.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a Conservative, linked Bridgen’s comments to antisemitism.
“Obviously, it is utterly unacceptable to make linkages and use language like that, and I’m determined that the scourge of antisemitism is eradicated,” Sunak said on the floor of the House of Commons.
In the U.K., as elsewhere in the world, anti-vaxxer and antisemitic rhetoric have often been deeply linked.
“The accusations that the pandemic is fake and that Jewish conspirators created the virus are the most dominant in anti-vaxxer communities,” said a report released by the British government in the fall of 2020. “Whilst the groups themselves are rarely established to spread antisemitism, they become a hotbed for antisemitic conspiracy theories.” . . .
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
His problem is one of self-awareness; he is aware that (in Belbin terms) he is the group ‘Plant’, but unaware that his role is to throw in a few ideas and then stand back while the adults in the room exercise some judgement.
That's one of the reasons Britain in general, and the centre-right in particular, is in the pickle it's in.
Gove and Johnson are both capable op-ed writers. It's a good thing that the Spectator exists to publish an unfiltered stream-of-conciousness from a right wing viewpoint. But their stuff needs filtering before it becomes a programme for government. For every good idea, there are multiple ideas that won't work and ideas that, even if they are workable, aren't good in the cold light of day.
For various reasons, the government is now run by Belbin plants, and the necessary filters between them and the levers of power have been removed.
Every great thinker needs an Alanbrooke.
Perhaps the forgotten aspect of Churchill was that you could say no to his ideas. And he would actually drop them, if given good reasons. And then oppose others coming up with same idea.
For example, the 9.2” “Ultra” Heavy cruisers proposed in 1940.
Which 9.2" cruisers? News to me!
A 9.2" cruiser sounds like a pocket battleship.
No, there were several 9.2" "armoured cruisers" in WW1 (eg. Minotaur, Shannon, Defence, etc), whereas the German Pocket Battleships of the 1930s (eg. Graf Spee) had 11" guns.
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
His problem is one of self-awareness; he is aware that (in Belbin terms) he is the group ‘Plant’, but unaware that his role is to throw in a few ideas and then stand back while the adults in the room exercise some judgement.
That's one of the reasons Britain in general, and the centre-right in particular, is in the pickle it's in.
Gove and Johnson are both capable op-ed writers. It's a good thing that the Spectator exists to publish an unfiltered stream-of-conciousness from a right wing viewpoint. But their stuff needs filtering before it becomes a programme for government. For every good idea, there are multiple ideas that won't work and ideas that, even if they are workable, aren't good in the cold light of day.
For various reasons, the government is now run by Belbin plants, and the necessary filters between them and the levers of power have been removed.
Every great thinker needs an Alanbrooke.
Perhaps the forgotten aspect of Churchill was that you could say no to his ideas. And he would actually drop them, if given good reasons. And then oppose others coming up with same idea.
For example, the 9.2” “Ultra” Heavy cruisers proposed in 1940.
What is the explanation for Anzio? Plenty of highly-placed people told him it was NOT a good idea. Yet he refused to give it up, kept pushing and pushing and pushing for it.
NOT among his better WW2 decisions. Along with Leros fiasco.
The Dragoon (originally Anvil) landings in southern France August '44 could have happened in Greece if Churchill had his way.
Which would have been a GREAT help . . . to the Wehrmacht.
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
His problem is one of self-awareness; he is aware that (in Belbin terms) he is the group ‘Plant’, but unaware that his role is to throw in a few ideas and then stand back while the adults in the room exercise some judgement.
That's one of the reasons Britain in general, and the centre-right in particular, is in the pickle it's in.
Gove and Johnson are both capable op-ed writers. It's a good thing that the Spectator exists to publish an unfiltered stream-of-conciousness from a right wing viewpoint. But their stuff needs filtering before it becomes a programme for government. For every good idea, there are multiple ideas that won't work and ideas that, even if they are workable, aren't good in the cold light of day.
For various reasons, the government is now run by Belbin plants, and the necessary filters between them and the levers of power have been removed.
Every great thinker needs an Alanbrooke.
Perhaps the forgotten aspect of Churchill was that you could say no to his ideas. And he would actually drop them, if given good reasons. And then oppose others coming up with same idea.
For example, the 9.2” “Ultra” Heavy cruisers proposed in 1940.
Which 9.2" cruisers? News to me!
A 9.2" cruiser sounds like a pocket battleship.
No, there were several 9.2" "armoured cruisers" in WW1 (eg. Minotaur, Shannon, Defence, etc), whereas the German Pocket Battleships of the 1930s (eg. Graf Spee) had 11" guns.
Sorry, I made the mistake of making a joke, based on the idea that 9.2" sounds quite small for a ship.
I hadn't come across this before - but have enjoyed a lot of motorway/road chat on here so thought it was worth a link (with apols if it's eye-rollingly familiar)
South London could do with a Ringway, compare and contrast the A406 with the A205.
I used to live in Forest Hill, and yes, the A205 is an elaborate practical joke of a ring road. But it's really hard to see where you could put it. Checking on Wikipedia, it turns out that the then Mayor of London had a plan to put the road in a series on tunnels for about 30 billion pounds. Yes, that Mayor of London.
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
His problem is one of self-awareness; he is aware that (in Belbin terms) he is the group ‘Plant’, but unaware that his role is to throw in a few ideas and then stand back while the adults in the room exercise some judgement.
That's one of the reasons Britain in general, and the centre-right in particular, is in the pickle it's in.
Gove and Johnson are both capable op-ed writers. It's a good thing that the Spectator exists to publish an unfiltered stream-of-conciousness from a right wing viewpoint. But their stuff needs filtering before it becomes a programme for government. For every good idea, there are multiple ideas that won't work and ideas that, even if they are workable, aren't good in the cold light of day.
For various reasons, the government is now run by Belbin plants, and the necessary filters between them and the levers of power have been removed.
Every great thinker needs an Alanbrooke.
Perhaps the forgotten aspect of Churchill was that you could say no to his ideas. And he would actually drop them, if given good reasons. And then oppose others coming up with same idea.
For example, the 9.2” “Ultra” Heavy cruisers proposed in 1940.
Which 9.2" cruisers? News to me!
A 9.2" cruiser sounds like a pocket battleship.
Not really - a pocket battleship was primarily a fleet expansion design. What do you build if all you have is 11inch guns? Also you want a raider that can fight off anything short of an actual battleship.
The 9.2 cruisers were an attempt to build a maximum cruiser.
One argument against them was that they weren’t maximal enough - for nearly the same money you could have 2 x 15” ships with the same speed. Which could take on anything.
JosiasJessop said: "So it becomes a case of the good of all, versus individual good. And it doesn't matter if Disease A is actually more likely to make me ill than the vaccine, as the vaccine's risk is avoidable, and I might get lucky with the disease.
Hence people more to the left, who tend to like public good, like vaccines. And individualists tend to be more on the right and dislike them?"
That does seem to be part of the reason for the left/right split in the US. (I would guess that explains much of Senator Rand Paul's thinking, for example.)
But, as far as I can tell, until recently, opposition to vaccines here came more from the "natural is good" left. So, for example, people who worry about GMO foods would be more likely to oppose vaccines, too.
The increase in opposition to vaccines on the right comes, I believe, partly from an increasing distrust of our news organizations. (An increase that isn't entirely unwarranted.) That was much magnified by Trump, of course, with the sad effect that many who followed him suffered in various ways.
(Some time ago I came up with this summary: If you follow Trump, you risk your money, your health, and even, for some, your freedom.)
Fackin hell, Twitter is still an education. An account I follow which I thought was a pretty nerdy and respectable one on WWI battlefield topography and archaeology has liked the Andrew Bridgen tweet threatening to sue Hancock for calling him an antisemite.
Bridgen v Hancock would of course be the shittest Alien v Predator ever, and therefore hugely entertaining.
Is he an anti-semite? His comments can perhaps be deemed inappropriate and insensitive, but they aren't anti-semitic in content. If he was trying to belittle the holocaust it's an extremely oblique way to do it. I thought Sunak's response in parliament majoring on this angle of criticism was wrong. I think Sunak should have said that his comments had no scientific basis and that vaccines had been tested (which they have) and had enabled the UK to look beyond covid.
JTA.org - British parliament member booted from Conservative Party after comparing COVID-19 vaccination to Holocaust
. . . . “Andrew Bridgen has crossed a line, causing great offense in the process,” said Simon Hart, the Conservative Party’s chief whip. “As a nation we should be very proud of what has been achieved through the vaccine program. The vaccine is the best defense against COVID that we have.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a Conservative, linked Bridgen’s comments to antisemitism.
“Obviously, it is utterly unacceptable to make linkages and use language like that, and I’m determined that the scourge of antisemitism is eradicated,” Sunak said on the floor of the House of Commons.
In the U.K., as elsewhere in the world, anti-vaxxer and antisemitic rhetoric have often been deeply linked.
“The accusations that the pandemic is fake and that Jewish conspirators created the virus are the most dominant in anti-vaxxer communities,” said a report released by the British government in the fall of 2020. “Whilst the groups themselves are rarely established to spread antisemitism, they become a hotbed for antisemitic conspiracy theories.” . . .
They may well be correlated, that would surprise nobody. But I think it's not right to use anti-semitism to dismiss something when there is no actual, provable antisemitic content in the statement that he has endorsed. If I were Jewish, I think I'd be slightly annoyed if people were being shut down on vax issues by others claiming to be rushing to my defense all the time. 'Leave me the fuck out of it, thanks all the same' would be my response.
I have a modicum of sympathy for the man - he had conspired, agitated and worked his way toward his life ambition of becoming Prime Minister for the thick end of 25 years betraying friends and enemies alike so that by the summer of 2019 the Conservative Party begged him to save them from an oblivion he had done so much to create.
He became Leader and then easily saw off Jeremy Corbyn to be the most powerful politician since Blair with a strong mandate, a new legion of MPs beholden to him and the world at his feet. He could rule for a decade or more and combine the best of his two idols, Thatcher and Churchill, transforming the country he loved for the 21st century and establishing a political legacy few could surpass.
Within 4 weeks of that election win, he was facing the biggest crisis of a generation and the biggest public health crisis of modern times. This time the enemy wouldn't respond to Churchillean prose - it was a virus, relentless and remorseless.
Churchill was an ordinary peacetime politician who was transformed to greatness by extraordinary circumstances. Johnson was an ordinary peacetime politician who was brought down by extraordinary circumstances. He needed an inheritance analogous to that of Blair - he had the mandate to transform as did Thatcher but in the end he couldn't cope with the scale of what confronted him and the manner with which he comported himself in office was out of touch with the mores of the time.
In the end, the enemies he made on the road to the top returned and had their revenge.
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
His problem is one of self-awareness; he is aware that (in Belbin terms) he is the group ‘Plant’, but unaware that his role is to throw in a few ideas and then stand back while the adults in the room exercise some judgement.
That's one of the reasons Britain in general, and the centre-right in particular, is in the pickle it's in.
Gove and Johnson are both capable op-ed writers. It's a good thing that the Spectator exists to publish an unfiltered stream-of-conciousness from a right wing viewpoint. But their stuff needs filtering before it becomes a programme for government. For every good idea, there are multiple ideas that won't work and ideas that, even if they are workable, aren't good in the cold light of day.
For various reasons, the government is now run by Belbin plants, and the necessary filters between them and the levers of power have been removed.
Every great thinker needs an Alanbrooke.
Perhaps the forgotten aspect of Churchill was that you could say no to his ideas. And he would actually drop them, if given good reasons. And then oppose others coming up with same idea.
For example, the 9.2” “Ultra” Heavy cruisers proposed in 1940.
Which 9.2" cruisers? News to me!
A 9.2" cruiser sounds like a pocket battleship.
No, there were several 9.2" "armoured cruisers" in WW1 (eg. Minotaur, Shannon, Defence, etc), whereas the German Pocket Battleships of the 1930s (eg. Graf Spee) had 11" guns.
Sorry, I made the mistake of making a joke, based on the idea that 9.2" sounds quite small for a ship.
Fackin hell, Twitter is still an education. An account I follow which I thought was a pretty nerdy and respectable one on WWI battlefield topography and archaeology has liked the Andrew Bridgen tweet threatening to sue Hancock for calling him an antisemite.
Bridgen v Hancock would of course be the shittest Alien v Predator ever, and therefore hugely entertaining.
Is he an anti-semite? His comments can perhaps be deemed inappropriate and insensitive, but they aren't anti-semitic in content. If he was trying to belittle the holocaust it's an extremely oblique way to do it. I thought Sunak's response in parliament majoring on this angle of criticism was wrong. I think Sunak should have said that his comments had no scientific basis and that vaccines had been tested (which they have) and had enabled the UK to look beyond covid.
JTA.org - British parliament member booted from Conservative Party after comparing COVID-19 vaccination to Holocaust
. . . . “Andrew Bridgen has crossed a line, causing great offense in the process,” said Simon Hart, the Conservative Party’s chief whip. “As a nation we should be very proud of what has been achieved through the vaccine program. The vaccine is the best defense against COVID that we have.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a Conservative, linked Bridgen’s comments to antisemitism.
“Obviously, it is utterly unacceptable to make linkages and use language like that, and I’m determined that the scourge of antisemitism is eradicated,” Sunak said on the floor of the House of Commons.
In the U.K., as elsewhere in the world, anti-vaxxer and antisemitic rhetoric have often been deeply linked.
“The accusations that the pandemic is fake and that Jewish conspirators created the virus are the most dominant in anti-vaxxer communities,” said a report released by the British government in the fall of 2020. “Whilst the groups themselves are rarely established to spread antisemitism, they become a hotbed for antisemitic conspiracy theories.” . . .
They may well be correlated, that would surprise nobody. But I think it's not right to use anti-semitism to dismiss something when there is no actual, provable antisemitic content in the statement that he has endorsed. If I were Jewish, I think I'd be slightly annoyed if people were being shut down on vax issues by others claiming to be rushing to my defense all the time. 'Leave me the fuck out of it, thanks all the same' would be my response.
You make some reasonable points.
However, for ANY politico to compare vaccinations to the Holocaust is either deliberately incendiary OR absurdly moronic. Not exactly first time that this "linkage" has been suggested - and vociferously condemned.
I have a modicum of sympathy for the man - he had conspired, agitated and worked his way toward his life ambition of becoming Prime Minister for the thick end of 25 years betraying friends and enemies alike so that by the summer of 2019 the Conservative Party begged him to save them from an oblivion he had done so much to create.
He became Leader and then easily saw off Jeremy Corbyn to be the most powerful politician since Blair with a strong mandate, a new legion of MPs beholden to him and the world at his feet. He could rule for a decade or more and combine the best of his two idols, Thatcher and Churchill, transforming the country he loved for the 21st century and establishing a political legacy few could surpass.
Within 4 weeks of that election win, he was facing the biggest crisis of a generation and the biggest public health crisis of modern times. This time the enemy wouldn't respond to Churchillean prose - it was a virus, relentless and remorseless.
Churchill was an ordinary peacetime politician who was transformed to greatness by extraordinary circumstances. Johnson was an ordinary peacetime politician who was brought down by extraordinary circumstances. He needed an inheritance analogous to that of Blair - he had the mandate to transform as did Thatcher but in the end he couldn't cope with the scale of what confronted him and the manner with which he comported himself in office was out of touch with the mores of the time.
In the end, the enemies he made on the road to the top returned and had their revenge.
Fackin hell, Twitter is still an education. An account I follow which I thought was a pretty nerdy and respectable one on WWI battlefield topography and archaeology has liked the Andrew Bridgen tweet threatening to sue Hancock for calling him an antisemite.
Bridgen v Hancock would of course be the shittest Alien v Predator ever, and therefore hugely entertaining.
Is he an anti-semite? His comments can perhaps be deemed inappropriate and insensitive, but they aren't anti-semitic in content. If he was trying to belittle the holocaust it's an extremely oblique way to do it. I thought Sunak's response in parliament majoring on this angle of criticism was wrong. I think Sunak should have said that his comments had no scientific basis and that vaccines had been tested (which they have) and had enabled the UK to look beyond covid.
I'm inclined to agree; the comparison with the holocaust is insensitive and ludicrous, more than anti-semitic. A broader look at Bridgen's output is that he is spreading disinformation, tantamount to conspiracy theories, about vaccines. It is on those grounds that Sunak could have withdrawn the whip.
Mind you, if the 'holocaust' tweet had been posted by J. Corbyn I'd bet he wouldn't have been given the benefit of the doubt.
That’s still a poll that’s finding more Tories than the last poll, though up just 1 from 25 still suggests Inheriting low 20s moving to mid twenties once voters measured him as PM is probably not what Tories hoped for from moving against Boris and his 30 odd % opinion polling.
If you look at all the news narrative, it’s hard to imagine a Tory bounce at this time - blaming the crisis on strikers and taking them on, Thatcher style, may not even be a core vote firmer, the Express hasn’t been on side with that.
Surely an Opinium today - last time it was no change on 29, which looks high figure based on the recent drop across other polls, so will it drop to 28 tonight? Surely it can’t drop more than 1 as 26/27 is where The undoctored polls already are? If Opinium give 30% for Tories in this narrative, that would be a BIG boost for the Tories and sigh of relief in number ten.
So far this year we have had two polls from YouGov, Techne, People Polling, Omnisis, and Redfield & Wilton, with one poll from Deltapoll. The Deltapoll had a Labour lead of 14% compared with 20% and over for the others.
We are awaiting polls from Savanta, Opinium, Ipsos and Kantar. Ipsos and Kantar would appear to poll monthly, whilst Opinium appear to be fortnightly (based on December polls).
Opinium tend to have higher numbers for Conservatives, but not as high as Deltapoll.
Kantor are the most favourable to Tories because they give high Tory % and struggle to find Labour supporters even without doctoring their poll like Opinium. Before Opinium started doctoring the polls - spinning the line all polls are wrong becuase the actual election result will have a lot of shy Tory swingback - they were reporting Labour leads nearly into double figures; what happened next is their polls remarkably consistent range whilst everyone else stretched Labours lead.
The last 2 said 29% for Conservatives. I think it will say the same if comes out today, or maybe drop 1 point.
I have a modicum of sympathy for the man - he had conspired, agitated and worked his way toward his life ambition of becoming Prime Minister for the thick end of 25 years betraying friends and enemies alike so that by the summer of 2019 the Conservative Party begged him to save them from an oblivion he had done so much to create.
He became Leader and then easily saw off Jeremy Corbyn to be the most powerful politician since Blair with a strong mandate, a new legion of MPs beholden to him and the world at his feet. He could rule for a decade or more and combine the best of his two idols, Thatcher and Churchill, transforming the country he loved for the 21st century and establishing a political legacy few could surpass.
Within 4 weeks of that election win, he was facing the biggest crisis of a generation and the biggest public health crisis of modern times. This time the enemy wouldn't respond to Churchillean prose - it was a virus, relentless and remorseless.
Churchill was an ordinary peacetime politician who was transformed to greatness by extraordinary circumstances. Johnson was an ordinary peacetime politician who was brought down by extraordinary circumstances. He needed an inheritance analogous to that of Blair - he had the mandate to transform as did Thatcher but in the end he couldn't cope with the scale of what confronted him and the manner with which he comported himself in office was out of touch with the mores of the time.
In the end, the enemies he made on the road to the top returned and had their revenge.
Hard agree on the dynamic that the style of his ascent made the style of his descent inevitable. But I wonder if Covid actually saved him for a bit. The continuous crisis was exhausting, sure. But it was also simple, becuase it reduced the scope for decisions. Much the same as escaping from a buring building is simple- you just need to know the exit route.
What really exposed him was when the crisis went away, and it became clear that he didn't really have an agenda of his own, apart from being a Great Prime Minister who would Go Down In History. And that's not enough, really.
Fackin hell, Twitter is still an education. An account I follow which I thought was a pretty nerdy and respectable one on WWI battlefield topography and archaeology has liked the Andrew Bridgen tweet threatening to sue Hancock for calling him an antisemite.
Bridgen v Hancock would of course be the shittest Alien v Predator ever, and therefore hugely entertaining.
Is he an anti-semite? His comments can perhaps be deemed inappropriate and insensitive, but they aren't anti-semitic in content. If he was trying to belittle the holocaust it's an extremely oblique way to do it. I thought Sunak's response in parliament majoring on this angle of criticism was wrong. I think Sunak should have said that his comments had no scientific basis and that vaccines had been tested (which they have) and had enabled the UK to look beyond covid.
JTA.org - British parliament member booted from Conservative Party after comparing COVID-19 vaccination to Holocaust
. . . . “Andrew Bridgen has crossed a line, causing great offense in the process,” said Simon Hart, the Conservative Party’s chief whip. “As a nation we should be very proud of what has been achieved through the vaccine program. The vaccine is the best defense against COVID that we have.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a Conservative, linked Bridgen’s comments to antisemitism.
“Obviously, it is utterly unacceptable to make linkages and use language like that, and I’m determined that the scourge of antisemitism is eradicated,” Sunak said on the floor of the House of Commons.
In the U.K., as elsewhere in the world, anti-vaxxer and antisemitic rhetoric have often been deeply linked.
“The accusations that the pandemic is fake and that Jewish conspirators created the virus are the most dominant in anti-vaxxer communities,” said a report released by the British government in the fall of 2020. “Whilst the groups themselves are rarely established to spread antisemitism, they become a hotbed for antisemitic conspiracy theories.” . . .
They may well be correlated, that would surprise nobody. But I think it's not right to use anti-semitism to dismiss something when there is no actual, provable antisemitic content in the statement that he has endorsed. If I were Jewish, I think I'd be slightly annoyed if people were being shut down on vax issues by others claiming to be rushing to my defense all the time. 'Leave me the fuck out of it, thanks all the same' would be my response.
You make some reasonable points.
However, for ANY politico to compare vaccinations to the Holocaust is either deliberately incendiary OR absurdly moronic. Not exactly first time that this "linkage" has been suggested - and vociferously condemned.
So which is Brigden? My guess is - both.
I'd put my money squarely on option one. Largely by virtue of people's response to this Tweet, he's gone from scummy money-grubbing twat to 'put upon anti-establisment hero'. That is entirely deliberate.
I have a modicum of sympathy for the man - he had conspired, agitated and worked his way toward his life ambition of becoming Prime Minister for the thick end of 25 years betraying friends and enemies alike so that by the summer of 2019 the Conservative Party begged him to save them from an oblivion he had done so much to create.
He became Leader and then easily saw off Jeremy Corbyn to be the most powerful politician since Blair with a strong mandate, a new legion of MPs beholden to him and the world at his feet. He could rule for a decade or more and combine the best of his two idols, Thatcher and Churchill, transforming the country he loved for the 21st century and establishing a political legacy few could surpass.
Within 4 weeks of that election win, he was facing the biggest crisis of a generation and the biggest public health crisis of modern times. This time the enemy wouldn't respond to Churchillean prose - it was a virus, relentless and remorseless.
Churchill was an ordinary peacetime politician who was transformed to greatness by extraordinary circumstances. Johnson was an ordinary peacetime politician who was brought down by extraordinary circumstances. He needed an inheritance analogous to that of Blair - he had the mandate to transform as did Thatcher but in the end he couldn't cope with the scale of what confronted him and the manner with which he comported himself in office was out of touch with the mores of the time.
In the end, the enemies he made on the road to the top returned and had their revenge.
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
His problem is one of self-awareness; he is aware that (in Belbin terms) he is the group ‘Plant’, but unaware that his role is to throw in a few ideas and then stand back while the adults in the room exercise some judgement.
That's one of the reasons Britain in general, and the centre-right in particular, is in the pickle it's in.
Gove and Johnson are both capable op-ed writers. It's a good thing that the Spectator exists to publish an unfiltered stream-of-conciousness from a right wing viewpoint. But their stuff needs filtering before it becomes a programme for government. For every good idea, there are multiple ideas that won't work and ideas that, even if they are workable, aren't good in the cold light of day.
For various reasons, the government is now run by Belbin plants, and the necessary filters between them and the levers of power have been removed.
Every great thinker needs an Alanbrooke.
Perhaps the forgotten aspect of Churchill was that you could say no to his ideas. And he would actually drop them, if given good reasons. And then oppose others coming up with same idea.
For example, the 9.2” “Ultra” Heavy cruisers proposed in 1940.
What is the explanation for Anzio? Plenty of highly-placed people told him it was NOT a good idea. Yet he refused to give it up, kept pushing and pushing and pushing for it.
NOT among his better WW2 decisions. Along with Leros fiasco.
Wavell was on the receiving end of some awful comments from Churchill, who could not understand that the man’s responsibilities extended far beyond defeating Rommel.
Completely off topic, but I think some of you will find this of interest: I've written a letter to Tim Cook, Apple CEO, offering him a small present -- with a condition.
I am offering him a colorful "Free Tibet" bumper sticker -- if he will promise to display it prominently.
(I have three of them, and plan to offer them to other prominent people who depend on the ChiComs. I don't expect to run out of them before the end of this year. And, if I get any replies, I'll share them, publicly.)
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non-violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Fackin hell, Twitter is still an education. An account I follow which I thought was a pretty nerdy and respectable one on WWI battlefield topography and archaeology has liked the Andrew Bridgen tweet threatening to sue Hancock for calling him an antisemite.
Bridgen v Hancock would of course be the shittest Alien v Predator ever, and therefore hugely entertaining.
Is he an anti-semite? His comments can perhaps be deemed inappropriate and insensitive, but they aren't anti-semitic in content. If he was trying to belittle the holocaust it's an extremely oblique way to do it. I thought Sunak's response in parliament majoring on this angle of criticism was wrong. I think Sunak should have said that his comments had no scientific basis and that vaccines had been tested (which they have) and had enabled the UK to look beyond covid.
JTA.org - British parliament member booted from Conservative Party after comparing COVID-19 vaccination to Holocaust
. . . . “Andrew Bridgen has crossed a line, causing great offense in the process,” said Simon Hart, the Conservative Party’s chief whip. “As a nation we should be very proud of what has been achieved through the vaccine program. The vaccine is the best defense against COVID that we have.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a Conservative, linked Bridgen’s comments to antisemitism.
“Obviously, it is utterly unacceptable to make linkages and use language like that, and I’m determined that the scourge of antisemitism is eradicated,” Sunak said on the floor of the House of Commons.
In the U.K., as elsewhere in the world, anti-vaxxer and antisemitic rhetoric have often been deeply linked.
“The accusations that the pandemic is fake and that Jewish conspirators created the virus are the most dominant in anti-vaxxer communities,” said a report released by the British government in the fall of 2020. “Whilst the groups themselves are rarely established to spread antisemitism, they become a hotbed for antisemitic conspiracy theories.” . . .
They may well be correlated, that would surprise nobody. But I think it's not right to use anti-semitism to dismiss something when there is no actual, provable antisemitic content in the statement that he has endorsed. If I were Jewish, I think I'd be slightly annoyed if people were being shut down on vax issues by others claiming to be rushing to my defense all the time. 'Leave me the fuck out of it, thanks all the same' would be my response.
You make some reasonable points.
However, for ANY politico to compare vaccinations to the Holocaust is either deliberately incendiary OR absurdly moronic. Not exactly first time that this "linkage" has been suggested - and vociferously condemned.
Fackin hell, Twitter is still an education. An account I follow which I thought was a pretty nerdy and respectable one on WWI battlefield topography and archaeology has liked the Andrew Bridgen tweet threatening to sue Hancock for calling him an antisemite.
Bridgen v Hancock would of course be the shittest Alien v Predator ever, and therefore hugely entertaining.
Is he an anti-semite? His comments can perhaps be deemed inappropriate and insensitive, but they aren't anti-semitic in content. If he was trying to belittle the holocaust it's an extremely oblique way to do it. I thought Sunak's response in parliament majoring on this angle of criticism was wrong. I think Sunak should have said that his comments had no scientific basis and that vaccines had been tested (which they have) and had enabled the UK to look beyond covid.
I'm inclined to agree; the comparison with the holocaust is insensitive and ludicrous, more than anti-semitic. A broader look at Bridgen's output is that he is spreading disinformation, tantamount to conspiracy theories, about vaccines. It is on those grounds that Sunak could have withdrawn the whip.
Mind you, if the 'holocaust' tweet had been posted by J. Corbyn I'd bet he wouldn't have been given the benefit of the doubt.
Brigden's statement certainly helpful to Tory message campaign labeling Labour as antisemitic - NOT!
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
His problem is one of self-awareness; he is aware that (in Belbin terms) he is the group ‘Plant’, but unaware that his role is to throw in a few ideas and then stand back while the adults in the room exercise some judgement.
That's one of the reasons Britain in general, and the centre-right in particular, is in the pickle it's in.
Gove and Johnson are both capable op-ed writers. It's a good thing that the Spectator exists to publish an unfiltered stream-of-conciousness from a right wing viewpoint. But their stuff needs filtering before it becomes a programme for government. For every good idea, there are multiple ideas that won't work and ideas that, even if they are workable, aren't good in the cold light of day.
For various reasons, the government is now run by Belbin plants, and the necessary filters between them and the levers of power have been removed.
Every great thinker needs an Alanbrooke.
Perhaps the forgotten aspect of Churchill was that you could say no to his ideas. And he would actually drop them, if given good reasons. And then oppose others coming up with same idea.
For example, the 9.2” “Ultra” Heavy cruisers proposed in 1940.
What is the explanation for Anzio? Plenty of highly-placed people told him it was NOT a good idea. Yet he refused to give it up, kept pushing and pushing and pushing for it.
NOT among his better WW2 decisions. Along with Leros fiasco.
Wavell was on the receiving end of some awful comments from Churchill, who could not understand that the man’s responsibilities extended far beyond defeating Rommel.
Churchill was a brilliant flawed genius who could also be a cold unfeeling prick.
The problem with Boris is that he recognised himself in the second (although AFAIK Churchill was 100% loyal to Clemmie) and therefore assumed he must also be the first too.
The climate change policy review commissioned by Liz Truss, aimed at making it more business focused, concludes that we should be accelerating not delaying efforts to achieve net zero. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057
Thanks @Nigelb for drawing this to my attention. I see no evidence that Chris Skidmore has provided to back up his assertions, and I am afraid I have no desire to read his report, though of course forcing everyone to scrap their boiler would no doubt 'create jobs' in the crudest sense.
There are some green schemes I do support - tidal is a sensible and reliable form of power generation, and we should go for it. If he's getting behind that, good on him. If it's more mindless ramping of solar and wind for the UK, meh.
Just questioning the case for nuclear power instead of renewables would make a change. One of the very first things Sunak did was to confirm he supported Boris's inane desire to build more nuclear power stations. Which might help in about 20 years time - at about three times the cost. Unless you ride completely roughshod over planning objections.
Agree. What irks me about nuclear is that the same people who are horrified about Russia, and what's happened at the Ukrainian nuclear power plant, are happy to see us commission what are essentially terrorist/invader targets, that also need to buy their fuel from Russia. To say nothing of being built by the Chinese (or worse, the French )
I'm not dismissing the idea but I do think there's a security dimension that is being blithely ignored.
By contrast, tidal seems ultra clean and ultra safe.
I'd entirely agree with you about nuclear power, and tidal indeed, but Russia is actually quite a minor player in the uranium market. Sixth behind Kazakhstan (which produces 45%) Australia, Namibia, Canada and even Uzbekistan.
I have a modicum of sympathy for the man - he had conspired, agitated and worked his way toward his life ambition of becoming Prime Minister for the thick end of 25 years betraying friends and enemies alike so that by the summer of 2019 the Conservative Party begged him to save them from an oblivion he had done so much to create.
He became Leader and then easily saw off Jeremy Corbyn to be the most powerful politician since Blair with a strong mandate, a new legion of MPs beholden to him and the world at his feet. He could rule for a decade or more and combine the best of his two idols, Thatcher and Churchill, transforming the country he loved for the 21st century and establishing a political legacy few could surpass.
Within 4 weeks of that election win, he was facing the biggest crisis of a generation and the biggest public health crisis of modern times. This time the enemy wouldn't respond to Churchillean prose - it was a virus, relentless and remorseless.
Churchill was an ordinary peacetime politician who was transformed to greatness by extraordinary circumstances. Johnson was an ordinary peacetime politician who was brought down by extraordinary circumstances. He needed an inheritance analogous to that of Blair - he had the mandate to transform as did Thatcher but in the end he couldn't cope with the scale of what confronted him and the manner with which he comported himself in office was out of touch with the mores of the time.
In the end, the enemies he made on the road to the top returned and had their revenge.
Hard agree on the dynamic that the style of his ascent made the style of his descent inevitable. But I wonder if Covid actually saved him for a bit. The continuous crisis was exhausting, sure. But it was also simple, becuase it reduced the scope for decisions. Much the same as escaping from a buring building is simple- you just need to know the exit route.
What really exposed him was when the crisis went away, and it became clear that he didn't really have an agenda of his own, apart from being a Great Prime Minister who would Go Down In History. And that's not enough, really.
I’m with Stuart. Had it not been for covid, Johnson’s inadequacies, and the lies and self-harm inherent in Brexit (and specifically his approach to it) would have become evident much earlier. He made some pretty bad mistakes, especially in the early days of the pandemic, but has largely been forgiven these (at least until we reach the inquiry) because of the magnitude of the challenge.
Covid actually gave him cover, and if he had been able to set some sort of an example and practice what he preached, he’d still be in office.
For Stodge, Churchill’s oratory was never really aimed at the enemy, but to boost morale at home, and to influence the Americans.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non- violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Owning a gun for hunting or killing vermin is entirely reasonable.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non-violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
My father owned a handgun, which he used for killing large animals - cattle, horses and sheep.
There weren't actually any other practicable ways to kill them quickly and humanely. Captive bolts had significant drawbacks (no pun intended).
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
His problem is one of self-awareness; he is aware that (in Belbin terms) he is the group ‘Plant’, but unaware that his role is to throw in a few ideas and then stand back while the adults in the room exercise some judgement.
That's one of the reasons Britain in general, and the centre-right in particular, is in the pickle it's in.
Gove and Johnson are both capable op-ed writers. It's a good thing that the Spectator exists to publish an unfiltered stream-of-conciousness from a right wing viewpoint. But their stuff needs filtering before it becomes a programme for government. For every good idea, there are multiple ideas that won't work and ideas that, even if they are workable, aren't good in the cold light of day.
For various reasons, the government is now run by Belbin plants, and the necessary filters between them and the levers of power have been removed.
Every great thinker needs an Alanbrooke.
Perhaps the forgotten aspect of Churchill was that you could say no to his ideas. And he would actually drop them, if given good reasons. And then oppose others coming up with same idea.
For example, the 9.2” “Ultra” Heavy cruisers proposed in 1940.
Which 9.2" cruisers? News to me!
A 9.2" cruiser sounds like a pocket battleship.
No, there were several 9.2" "armoured cruisers" in WW1 (eg. Minotaur, Shannon, Defence, etc), whereas the German Pocket Battleships of the 1930s (eg. Graf Spee) had 11" guns.
Sorry, I made the mistake of making a joke, based on the idea that 9.2" sounds quite small for a ship.
Fackin hell, Twitter is still an education. An account I follow which I thought was a pretty nerdy and respectable one on WWI battlefield topography and archaeology has liked the Andrew Bridgen tweet threatening to sue Hancock for calling him an antisemite.
Bridgen v Hancock would of course be the shittest Alien v Predator ever, and therefore hugely entertaining.
Is he an anti-semite? His comments can perhaps be deemed inappropriate and insensitive, but they aren't anti-semitic in content. If he was trying to belittle the holocaust it's an extremely oblique way to do it. I thought Sunak's response in parliament majoring on this angle of criticism was wrong. I think Sunak should have said that his comments had no scientific basis and that vaccines had been tested (which they have) and had enabled the UK to look beyond covid.
JTA.org - British parliament member booted from Conservative Party after comparing COVID-19 vaccination to Holocaust
. . . . “Andrew Bridgen has crossed a line, causing great offense in the process,” said Simon Hart, the Conservative Party’s chief whip. “As a nation we should be very proud of what has been achieved through the vaccine program. The vaccine is the best defense against COVID that we have.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a Conservative, linked Bridgen’s comments to antisemitism.
“Obviously, it is utterly unacceptable to make linkages and use language like that, and I’m determined that the scourge of antisemitism is eradicated,” Sunak said on the floor of the House of Commons.
In the U.K., as elsewhere in the world, anti-vaxxer and antisemitic rhetoric have often been deeply linked.
“The accusations that the pandemic is fake and that Jewish conspirators created the virus are the most dominant in anti-vaxxer communities,” said a report released by the British government in the fall of 2020. “Whilst the groups themselves are rarely established to spread antisemitism, they become a hotbed for antisemitic conspiracy theories.” . . .
What document was that? Got a link?
The document if it exists didn't yield to the following search either at DuckDuckGo or Google:
"anti-vaxxer communities" site:gov.uk
Edit:
Found it! This is the document that is referred to, and the words are on page 8 of it:
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
His problem is one of self-awareness; he is aware that (in Belbin terms) he is the group ‘Plant’, but unaware that his role is to throw in a few ideas and then stand back while the adults in the room exercise some judgement.
That's one of the reasons Britain in general, and the centre-right in particular, is in the pickle it's in.
Gove and Johnson are both capable op-ed writers. It's a good thing that the Spectator exists to publish an unfiltered stream-of-conciousness from a right wing viewpoint. But their stuff needs filtering before it becomes a programme for government. For every good idea, there are multiple ideas that won't work and ideas that, even if they are workable, aren't good in the cold light of day.
For various reasons, the government is now run by Belbin plants, and the necessary filters between them and the levers of power have been removed.
Every great thinker needs an Alanbrooke.
Perhaps the forgotten aspect of Churchill was that you could say no to his ideas. And he would actually drop them, if given good reasons. And then oppose others coming up with same idea.
For example, the 9.2” “Ultra” Heavy cruisers proposed in 1940.
What is the explanation for Anzio? Plenty of highly-placed people told him it was NOT a good idea. Yet he refused to give it up, kept pushing and pushing and pushing for it.
NOT among his better WW2 decisions. Along with Leros fiasco.
Wavell was on the receiving end of some awful comments from Churchill, who could not understand that the man’s responsibilities extended far beyond defeating Rommel.
Churchill was a brilliant flawed genius who could also be a cold unfeeling prick.
The problem with Boris is that he recognised himself in the second (although AFAIK Churchill was 100% loyal to Clemmie) and therefore assumed he must also be the first too.
He wasn't and isn't.
TBF, Johnson does have a genius for self-promotion and a masterful sense of comic timing.
Man Utd’s win just confirms they will finish runners up to Man City in my view in the title race this season. It’s not just the run of wins they are on, it’s the fantastic record against top sides. Man City, Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal all beaten by them now, that’s a great indicator of a top 2 finish come the end. Who comes 3rd 4th is a toss up between Tottenham, Newcastle and Arsenal - of those 3 sides Tottenham have by far the stronger bench and quality in the squad and better manager, should be one of the two for the CL spot.
Big day tomorrow in the battle for the top four then
Sure, Man Utd have beaten both Arsenal and Man City (they also got thumped at City), but those two wins were with a huge helping hand from the officials.
It's interesting to note that Man Utd have scored 29 goals this season. Eight of those have been against Arsenal and Man City.
Yes spot on - tomorrow afternoons match is a key one in the battle for top 4 place, denying spurs 2 points would be a good result for arsenal. spurs have the depth in quality of squad and experience of manager to go on a strong run in what remains of the season. I think Arsenal will get 4th spot ahead of Newcastle, but the bench is so thin, any more injuries and the inevitable wobble will be become slump - Arsenal missed top 4 last season because the squad was so thin of quality, clapped out tired and crocked players took the field, and the situation is already little different this time round.
I think we can dismiss misfiring Liverpool and Chelsea from making top 4 this season. I feel sorry for Klopp, it’s like the board havn’t helped him quick enough and it’s not his fault.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non-violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
My father owned a handgun, which he used for killing large animals - cattle, horses and sheep.
There weren't actually any other practicable ways to kill them quickly and humanely. Captive bolts had significant drawbacks (no pun intended).
I recall a vet trying to kill a horse with a .22 pistol - I know, WTF?
The little old lady who owned the horse, appalled, went into the house and came back with a Webley in .455. Which finished the poor beast off with one shot.
The climate change policy review commissioned by Liz Truss, aimed at making it more business focused, concludes that we should be accelerating not delaying efforts to achieve net zero. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64257057
Thanks @Nigelb for drawing this to my attention. I see no evidence that Chris Skidmore has provided to back up his assertions, and I am afraid I have no desire to read his report, though of course forcing everyone to scrap their boiler would no doubt 'create jobs' in the crudest sense.
There are some green schemes I do support - tidal is a sensible and reliable form of power generation, and we should go for it. If he's getting behind that, good on him. If it's more mindless ramping of solar and wind for the UK, meh.
Just questioning the case for nuclear power instead of renewables would make a change. One of the very first things Sunak did was to confirm he supported Boris's inane desire to build more nuclear power stations. Which might help in about 20 years time - at about three times the cost. Unless you ride completely roughshod over planning objections.
Agree. What irks me about nuclear is that the same people who are horrified about Russia, and what's happened at the Ukrainian nuclear power plant, are happy to see us commission what are essentially terrorist/invader targets, that also need to buy their fuel from Russia. To say nothing of being built by the Chinese (or worse, the French )
I'm not dismissing the idea but I do think there's a security dimension that is being blithely ignored.
By contrast, tidal seems ultra clean and ultra safe.
I'd entirely agree with you about nuclear power, and tidal indeed, but Russia is actually quite a minor player in the uranium market. Sixth behind Kazakhstan (which produces 45%) Australia, Namibia, Canada and even Uzbekistan.
I really have got stuff to do, but a battle between @Richard_Tyndall and @Leon is far more tempting than my low calorie lunch. Maybe I should stay awhile. It'll be close, but I think I might bet on @Richard_Tyndall getting the upper. Sorry @Leon old buddy
Beating on Leon is fun but in the end a pointless exercise. No one is convinced by his protestations - even those who agree with him on stuff have to give a wry smile everytime he digs himself into a hole. And like the argument he had with kjh on the last thread, it will just get tedious for everyone else.
Time to let him drown his sorrows once again. After all the sun is well over the yard arm in Bangkok.
His problem is one of self-awareness; he is aware that (in Belbin terms) he is the group ‘Plant’, but unaware that his role is to throw in a few ideas and then stand back while the adults in the room exercise some judgement.
That's one of the reasons Britain in general, and the centre-right in particular, is in the pickle it's in.
Gove and Johnson are both capable op-ed writers. It's a good thing that the Spectator exists to publish an unfiltered stream-of-conciousness from a right wing viewpoint. But their stuff needs filtering before it becomes a programme for government. For every good idea, there are multiple ideas that won't work and ideas that, even if they are workable, aren't good in the cold light of day.
For various reasons, the government is now run by Belbin plants, and the necessary filters between them and the levers of power have been removed.
Every great thinker needs an Alanbrooke.
Perhaps the forgotten aspect of Churchill was that you could say no to his ideas. And he would actually drop them, if given good reasons. And then oppose others coming up with same idea.
For example, the 9.2” “Ultra” Heavy cruisers proposed in 1940.
What is the explanation for Anzio? Plenty of highly-placed people told him it was NOT a good idea. Yet he refused to give it up, kept pushing and pushing and pushing for it.
NOT among his better WW2 decisions. Along with Leros fiasco.
Wavell was on the receiving end of some awful comments from Churchill, who could not understand that the man’s responsibilities extended far beyond defeating Rommel.
Churchill was a brilliant flawed genius who could also be a cold unfeeling prick.
The problem with Boris is that he recognised himself in the second (although AFAIK Churchill was 100% loyal to Clemmie) and therefore assumed he must also be the first too.
He wasn't and isn't.
TBF, Johnson does have a genius for self-promotion and a masterful sense of comic timing.
That doesn't make him good at politics of course.
Parallel Universe time.
Gove became a great campaigning editor of the Sunday Times, who was then somehow persuaded to revive A Stab In The Dark on Channel 4, which is somehow Not Shit.
Johnson edits the Telegraph, which everyone agrees is a sparkling daily publication, the first post-news newspaper. He is a regular guest host on HIGNFY, who taunts Govey when he gets better ratings.
Johnson occasionally wonders what would have happened if he'd taken politics seriously.
Man Utd’s win just confirms they will finish runners up to Man City in my view in the title race this season. It’s not just the run of wins they are on, it’s the fantastic record against top sides. Man City, Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal all beaten by them now, that’s a great indicator of a top 2 finish come the end. Who comes 3rd 4th is a toss up between Tottenham, Newcastle and Arsenal - of those 3 sides Tottenham have by far the stronger bench and quality in the squad and better manager, should be one of the two for the CL spot.
Big day tomorrow in the battle for the top four then
Sure, Man Utd have beaten both Arsenal and Man City (they also got thumped at City), but those two wins were with a huge helping hand from the officials.
It's interesting to note that Man Utd have scored 29 goals this season. Eight of those have been against Arsenal and Man City.
Yes spot on - tomorrow afternoons match is a key one in the battle for top 4 place, denying spurs 2 points would be a good result for arsenal. spurs have the depth in quality of squad and experience of manager to go on a strong run in what remains of the season. I think Arsenal will get 4th spot ahead of Newcastle, but the bench is so thin, any more injuries and the inevitable wobble will be become slump - Arsenal missed top 4 last season because the squad was so thin of quality, clapped out tired and crocked players took the field, and the situation is already little different this time round.
I think we can dismiss misfiring Liverpool and Chelsea from making top 4 this season. I feel sorry for Klopp, it’s like the board havn’t helped him quick enough and it’s not his fault.
Don't agree with you on Arsenal. They've added Jesus and Zinchenko, and others have improved.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non- violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Owning a gun for hunting or killing vermin is entirely reasonable.
I don't see why this is so controversial.
We are absurdly sentimental about animals in this country, presumably because we are so socially uneasy with our fellow humans so use them as a surrogate.
Man Utd’s win just confirms they will finish runners up to Man City in my view in the title race this season. It’s not just the run of wins they are on, it’s the fantastic record against top sides. Man City, Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal all beaten by them now, that’s a great indicator of a top 2 finish come the end. Who comes 3rd 4th is a toss up between Tottenham, Newcastle and Arsenal - of those 3 sides Tottenham have by far the stronger bench and quality in the squad and better manager, should be one of the two for the CL spot.
Big day tomorrow in the battle for the top four then
Sure, Man Utd have beaten both Arsenal and Man City (they also got thumped at City), but those two wins were with a huge helping hand from the officials.
It's interesting to note that Man Utd have scored 29 goals this season. Eight of those have been against Arsenal and Man City.
Yes spot on - tomorrow afternoons match is a key one in the battle for top 4 place, denying spurs 2 points would be a good result for arsenal. spurs have the depth in quality of squad and experience of manager to go on a strong run in what remains of the season. I think Arsenal will get 4th spot ahead of Newcastle, but the bench is so thin, any more injuries and the inevitable wobble will be become slump - Arsenal missed top 4 last season because the squad was so thin of quality, clapped out tired and crocked players took the field, and the situation is already little different this time round.
I think we can dismiss misfiring Liverpool and Chelsea from making top 4 this season. I feel sorry for Klopp, it’s like the board havn’t helped him quick enough and it’s not his fault.
538 make Arsenal a 96% change to finish top four. You can lay them at 1.07 if you fancy making a decent amount of money (if you're right, of course).
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non-violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Generally I wouldn't disagree with you but there are reasons for some to own a hand gun. As I reported here a few years ago we had a deer in the garden that had green bottle maggots eating away at the skull. I looked after it until the deer rescue people arrived. It was so far gone it just stayed with me. They decided it was best to kill it. They used a hand gun.
Manhattan of course has a wonderful grid system. I don’t know if this eases traffic, but I want to say it seems easier to travel up and downtown than London which by the time I left has become perma-gridlocked by road closures and low traffic neighbourhoods.
London also has all these weird gyratories and other schemes, some of which have admittedly been removed, but seem to further clog and destroy localities where they still remain.
The disaster that is Aldgate, for example, or the mad five way system that is King’s Cross-Caledonian-Euston-Gray’s Inn Road.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non-violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Generally I wouldn't disagree with you but there are reasons for some to own a hand gun. As I reported here a few years ago we had a deer in the garden that had green bottle maggots eating away at the skull. I looked after it until the deer rescue people arrived. It was so far gone it just stayed with me. They decided it was best to kill it. They used a hand gun.
Somebody like a vet (or deer rescue) applying for a humane killing gun is in a different league to Joe Bloggs "just wanting one" as per the American method. I would expect the vet's gun is a low-accuracy single shot device and not a Glock with a 13 bullet quick change magazine.
Man Utd’s win just confirms they will finish runners up to Man City in my view in the title race this season. It’s not just the run of wins they are on, it’s the fantastic record against top sides. Man City, Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal all beaten by them now, that’s a great indicator of a top 2 finish come the end. Who comes 3rd 4th is a toss up between Tottenham, Newcastle and Arsenal - of those 3 sides Tottenham have by far the stronger bench and quality in the squad and better manager, should be one of the two for the CL spot.
Big day tomorrow in the battle for the top four then
Sure, Man Utd have beaten both Arsenal and Man City (they also got thumped at City), but those two wins were with a huge helping hand from the officials.
It's interesting to note that Man Utd have scored 29 goals this season. Eight of those have been against Arsenal and Man City.
Yes spot on - tomorrow afternoons match is a key one in the battle for top 4 place, denying spurs 2 points would be a good result for arsenal. spurs have the depth in quality of squad and experience of manager to go on a strong run in what remains of the season. I think Arsenal will get 4th spot ahead of Newcastle, but the bench is so thin, any more injuries and the inevitable wobble will be become slump - Arsenal missed top 4 last season because the squad was so thin of quality, clapped out tired and crocked players took the field, and the situation is already little different this time round.
I think we can dismiss misfiring Liverpool and Chelsea from making top 4 this season. I feel sorry for Klopp, it’s like the board havn’t helped him quick enough and it’s not his fault.
Don't agree with you on Arsenal. They've added Jesus and Zinchenko, and others have improved.
Ha. How much of the season have those two missed already. The Arsenal bench and squad too thin on quality - whenever “howler any second” holding starts, you know it’s not a top 4 line up. Where you say the youngsters are better this season, the fixtures have been very kind to them up to this point, how do these youngsters confidence and belief survive 5 without a win (one match into that wobble already). Man City, Man Utd, Tottenham, Arsenal, Newcastle is the order after full fixture list stretches those squads.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non- violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Owning a gun for hunting or killing vermin is entirely reasonable.
I don't see why this is so controversial.
We are absurdly sentimental about animals in this country, presumably because we are so socially uneasy with our fellow humans so use them as a surrogate.
I am not worried about killing vermin. I am more concerned about killing people. You know fathers, mothers, daughters, nephews, etc.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non-violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Generally I wouldn't disagree with you but there are reasons for some to own a hand gun. As I reported here a few years ago we had a deer in the garden that had green bottle maggots eating away at the skull. I looked after it until the deer rescue people arrived. It was so far gone it just stayed with me. They decided it was best to kill it. They used a hand gun.
Somebody like a vet (or deer rescue) applying for a humane killing gun is in a different league to Joe Bloggs "just wanting one" as per the American method. I would expect the vet's gun is a low-accuracy single shot device and not a Glock with a 13 bullet quick change magazine.
Agree. It wasn't single shot though because he fired one shot to the head and then I was surprised to see he fired another in the body, I assume to the heart.
Manhattan of course has a wonderful grid system. I don’t know if this eases traffic, but I want to say it seems easier to travel up and downtown than London which by the time I left has become perma-gridlocked by road closures and low traffic neighbourhoods.
London also has all these weird gyratories and other schemes, some of which have admittedly been removed, but seem to further clog and destroy localities where they still remain.
The disaster that is Aldgate, for example, or the mad five way system that is King’s Cross-Caledonian-Euston-Gray’s Inn Road.
When I was in the US I was reading an interesting book about the origins of New York’s grid street plan. Which was actually developed when there already roads and tracks in place, many dating from the original Dutch settlement. The process of surveying the land and mapping out the proposed street plan was very controversial - involving surveyors encroaching onto private land - in once case mapping out a road that would run through someone’s kitchen, resulting in litigation, and the council had to adopt special powers to force its plans - which were drawn and redrawn several times, through. A fair few properties were demolished to impose the grid onto the city.
On the London case, I have a copy of the original London plan that had concentric rings of highways mapped out around the capital, which included a South Circular built to a similar standard to the North. These proposals over-reached and were strongly resisted and eventually watered down considerably, although they did plant the seed that eventually led to the M25.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non- violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Owning a gun for hunting or killing vermin is entirely reasonable.
I don't see why this is so controversial.
We are absurdly sentimental about animals in this country, presumably because we are so socially uneasy with our fellow humans so use them as a surrogate.
I am not worried about killing vermin. I am more concerned about killing people. You know fathers, mothers, daughters, nephews, etc.
You are aware that in the countryside, everyone is packin' ?
Peace talks plan: moves to reconcile Prince Harry with the Windsors before the coronation
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
Man Utd’s win just confirms they will finish runners up to Man City in my view in the title race this season. It’s not just the run of wins they are on, it’s the fantastic record against top sides. Man City, Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal all beaten by them now, that’s a great indicator of a top 2 finish come the end. Who comes 3rd 4th is a toss up between Tottenham, Newcastle and Arsenal - of those 3 sides Tottenham have by far the stronger bench and quality in the squad and better manager, should be one of the two for the CL spot.
Big day tomorrow in the battle for the top four then
Sure, Man Utd have beaten both Arsenal and Man City (they also got thumped at City), but those two wins were with a huge helping hand from the officials.
It's interesting to note that Man Utd have scored 29 goals this season. Eight of those have been against Arsenal and Man City.
Yes spot on - tomorrow afternoons match is a key one in the battle for top 4 place, denying spurs 2 points would be a good result for arsenal. spurs have the depth in quality of squad and experience of manager to go on a strong run in what remains of the season. I think Arsenal will get 4th spot ahead of Newcastle, but the bench is so thin, any more injuries and the inevitable wobble will be become slump - Arsenal missed top 4 last season because the squad was so thin of quality, clapped out tired and crocked players took the field, and the situation is already little different this time round.
I think we can dismiss misfiring Liverpool and Chelsea from making top 4 this season. I feel sorry for Klopp, it’s like the board havn’t helped him quick enough and it’s not his fault.
Not sure how much of what I am about to write is on the money, but here goes. I heard a while ago that Klopps style demands huge efforts from the side. Constant motion, high tempo. Players must buy in. And it works, for a while. But eventually players get tired off it. Unless you can regenerate the squad (as Fergie did, and arguably Wenger) then it will inevitably fail. Citeh is different. Much more possession based, much easier to play with the ball. And looking at the table on this chilly Jan evening, it’s not impossible that United could actually win the league this season.
Fackin hell, Twitter is still an education. An account I follow which I thought was a pretty nerdy and respectable one on WWI battlefield topography and archaeology has liked the Andrew Bridgen tweet threatening to sue Hancock for calling him an antisemite.
Bridgen v Hancock would of course be the shittest Alien v Predator ever, and therefore hugely entertaining.
Is he an anti-semite? His comments can perhaps be deemed inappropriate and insensitive, but they aren't anti-semitic in content. If he was trying to belittle the holocaust it's an extremely oblique way to do it. I thought Sunak's response in parliament majoring on this angle of criticism was wrong. I think Sunak should have said that his comments had no scientific basis and that vaccines had been tested (which they have) and had enabled the UK to look beyond covid.
I'm inclined to agree; the comparison with the holocaust is insensitive and ludicrous, more than anti-semitic. A broader look at Bridgen's output is that he is spreading disinformation, tantamount to conspiracy theories, about vaccines. It is on those grounds that Sunak could have withdrawn the whip.
Mind you, if the 'holocaust' tweet had been posted by J. Corbyn I'd bet he wouldn't have been given the benefit of the doubt.
It's why we should focus on acts not the unknowable intentions of the soul. In Bridgen's remark was grossly offensive in a way that we usually regard as possibly representative of antisemitism because if you cared about those it's offensive to, to raise the Holocaust as a comparison for at each opportunity (plenty of other words out there), you'd be more careful - especially when dealing with conspiracy theories which have a tendency to spiral into antisemitism. You also have to ask if Bridgen thinks vaccines genuinely are comparable to the Holocaust, then what is he doing standing as an MP for a government with responsibility for them? If he doesn't then he's either minimising or being flippant about it. A bit like Corbyn - even his sternest critics didn't think he went to bed thinking of ways to be mean to Jews, but rather that whether because of stupidity or malice he had a tendency to say and do things which had the effect of minimising or excusing antisemitism - and that you shouldn't have to be told more than once not to do, or people will begin to think there's a bigoted reason you refuse to listen.
That's perhaps what the two have in common. Both are too frighteningly dense to realise when stuff crosses a line and causes people to object and take offence.
Peace talks plan: moves to reconcile Prince Harry with the Windsors before the coronation
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to be mediator between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family as apparently one of the few establishment figures trusted by both sides.
Personally I would offer them roles as Ambassadors to the Commonwealth as they are interested in but formally restrict HRHs to working royals
Manhattan of course has a wonderful grid system. I don’t know if this eases traffic, but I want to say it seems easier to travel up and downtown than London which by the time I left has become perma-gridlocked by road closures and low traffic neighbourhoods.
London also has all these weird gyratories and other schemes, some of which have admittedly been removed, but seem to further clog and destroy localities where they still remain.
The disaster that is Aldgate, for example, or the mad five way system that is King’s Cross-Caledonian-Euston-Gray’s Inn Road.
When I was in the US I was reading an interesting book about the origins of New York’s grid street plan. Which was actually developed when there already roads and tracks in place, many dating from the original Dutch settlement. The process of surveying the land and mapping out the proposed street plan was very controversial - involving surveyors encroaching onto private land - in once case mapping out a road that would run through someone’s kitchen, resulting in litigation, and the council had to adopt special powers to force its plans - which were drawn and redrawn several times, through. A fair few properties were demolished to impose the grid onto the city.
On the London case, I have a copy of the original London plan that had concentric rings of highways mapped out around the capital, which included a South Circular built to a similar standard to the North. These proposals over-reached and were strongly resisted and eventually watered down considerably, although they did plant the seed that eventually led to the M25.
Earlier than that, plans were requested after the Great Fire of London for a remodelling of the entire city - think of what Haussmann did in Paris, 200 years earlier.
In the end everyone wanted to get back to normal life, so one of my heroes, Robert Hooke, was commissioned to survey the old street structure and set out the roads as they had been.
It's interesting to think what the city would have been like if they had gone ahead. In some ways, perhaps, worse.
Man Utd’s win just confirms they will finish runners up to Man City in my view in the title race this season. It’s not just the run of wins they are on, it’s the fantastic record against top sides. Man City, Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal all beaten by them now, that’s a great indicator of a top 2 finish come the end. Who comes 3rd 4th is a toss up between Tottenham, Newcastle and Arsenal - of those 3 sides Tottenham have by far the stronger bench and quality in the squad and better manager, should be one of the two for the CL spot.
Big day tomorrow in the battle for the top four then
Sure, Man Utd have beaten both Arsenal and Man City (they also got thumped at City), but those two wins were with a huge helping hand from the officials.
It's interesting to note that Man Utd have scored 29 goals this season. Eight of those have been against Arsenal and Man City.
Yes spot on - tomorrow afternoons match is a key one in the battle for top 4 place, denying spurs 2 points would be a good result for arsenal. spurs have the depth in quality of squad and experience of manager to go on a strong run in what remains of the season. I think Arsenal will get 4th spot ahead of Newcastle, but the bench is so thin, any more injuries and the inevitable wobble will be become slump - Arsenal missed top 4 last season because the squad was so thin of quality, clapped out tired and crocked players took the field, and the situation is already little different this time round.
I think we can dismiss misfiring Liverpool and Chelsea from making top 4 this season. I feel sorry for Klopp, it’s like the board havn’t helped him quick enough and it’s not his fault.
538 make Arsenal a 96% change to finish top four. You can lay them at 1.07 if you fancy making a decent amount of money (if you're right, of course).
I think Arsenal will make top 4, no chance of top 2 though - I know a bit about it because dear gf and her Dad are fans, but to me their transfer process has been just too slow to resolve the problem that cost them last season, an okay 11 that’s too knackered at the end without help; two or three quality players can knock the under 20’s off that bench this week, not just negotiate 1 person at a time. Mudryk doesn’t help them much this season, he hasn’t played 90 minutes for months! He might settle in okay in future though. Not worth more than Gapko tbh, they are paying way over the top.
Manhattan of course has a wonderful grid system. I don’t know if this eases traffic, but I want to say it seems easier to travel up and downtown than London which by the time I left has become perma-gridlocked by road closures and low traffic neighbourhoods.
London also has all these weird gyratories and other schemes, some of which have admittedly been removed, but seem to further clog and destroy localities where they still remain.
The disaster that is Aldgate, for example, or the mad five way system that is King’s Cross-Caledonian-Euston-Gray’s Inn Road.
IIRC, the Manhattan grid system had very similar aim as the range-township-section system for subdividing and selling federal public lands in the Old Northwest, and beyond: maximizing revenue and development, while minimizing legal disputes and other practical difficulties.
With respect to US land survey system, the contrast between the "meets and bounds" chaos in Kentucky and Virginia, and the way more orderly and coherent situation north of the Ohio River, was a major impetus for Kentucky settlers (such Abe Lincoln's pa) to move out and resettle in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.
In New York, the rectangular shape of Manhattan lent itself to grid system north of the area already developed, with Broadway and other roads already there to show the way.
Perhaps worth mentioning, that it was the same generation (it's successor) that conceived, financed and constructed the Erie Canal - THE key infrastructure project of the early Republic, which make New York City THE major metropolis of North America, and New York State the Empire State.
And REALLY opened up the West - starting with the Great Lakes - to MAJOR development, mass migration and foreign immigration, and rapid expansion of American agriculture, commerce and above all industry.
Manhattan of course has a wonderful grid system. I don’t know if this eases traffic, but I want to say it seems easier to travel up and downtown than London which by the time I left has become perma-gridlocked by road closures and low traffic neighbourhoods.
London also has all these weird gyratories and other schemes, some of which have admittedly been removed, but seem to further clog and destroy localities where they still remain.
The disaster that is Aldgate, for example, or the mad five way system that is King’s Cross-Caledonian-Euston-Gray’s Inn Road.
When I was in the US I was reading an interesting book about the origins of New York’s grid street plan. Which was actually developed when there already roads and tracks in place, many dating from the original Dutch settlement. The process of surveying the land and mapping out the proposed street plan was very controversial - involving surveyors encroaching onto private land - in once case mapping out a road that would run through someone’s kitchen, resulting in litigation, and the council had to adopt special powers to force its plans - which were drawn and redrawn several times, through. A fair few properties were demolished to impose the grid onto the city.
On the London case, I have a copy of the original London plan that had concentric rings of highways mapped out around the capital, which included a South Circular built to a similar standard to the North. These proposals over-reached and were strongly resisted and eventually watered down considerably, although they did plant the seed that eventually led to the M25.
A lot of uptown Manhattan was basically outcrops of rock, impossible to build on. Developers had to blast it away in order to create orderly flat plots.
There are still or two weird outcrops remaining, such as “Mount Tom”, upon which Edgar Allan Poe liked to sit and gaze out over the Hudson River.
Man Utd’s win just confirms they will finish runners up to Man City in my view in the title race this season. It’s not just the run of wins they are on, it’s the fantastic record against top sides. Man City, Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal all beaten by them now, that’s a great indicator of a top 2 finish come the end. Who comes 3rd 4th is a toss up between Tottenham, Newcastle and Arsenal - of those 3 sides Tottenham have by far the stronger bench and quality in the squad and better manager, should be one of the two for the CL spot.
Big day tomorrow in the battle for the top four then
Sure, Man Utd have beaten both Arsenal and Man City (they also got thumped at City), but those two wins were with a huge helping hand from the officials.
It's interesting to note that Man Utd have scored 29 goals this season. Eight of those have been against Arsenal and Man City.
Yes spot on - tomorrow afternoons match is a key one in the battle for top 4 place, denying spurs 2 points would be a good result for arsenal. spurs have the depth in quality of squad and experience of manager to go on a strong run in what remains of the season. I think Arsenal will get 4th spot ahead of Newcastle, but the bench is so thin, any more injuries and the inevitable wobble will be become slump - Arsenal missed top 4 last season because the squad was so thin of quality, clapped out tired and crocked players took the field, and the situation is already little different this time round.
I think we can dismiss misfiring Liverpool and Chelsea from making top 4 this season. I feel sorry for Klopp, it’s like the board havn’t helped him quick enough and it’s not his fault.
538 make Arsenal a 96% change to finish top four. You can lay them at 1.07 if you fancy making a decent amount of money (if you're right, of course).
I think Arsenal will make top 4, no chance of top 2 though - I know a bit about it because dear gf and her Dad are fans, but to me their transfer process has been just too slow to resolve the problem that cost them last season, an okay 11 that’s too knackered at the end without help; two or three quality players can knock the under 20’s off that bench this week, not just negotiate 1 person at a time. Mudryk doesn’t help them much this season, he hasn’t played 90 minutes for months! He might settle in okay in future though. Not worth more than Gapko tbh, they are paying way over the top.
Well, good job Mudryk is on his way to Stamford Bridge!
Peace talks plan: moves to reconcile Prince Harry with the Windsors before the coronation
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to be mediator between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family as apparently one of the few establishment figures trusted by both sides.
Personally I would offer them roles as Ambassadors to the Commonwealth as they are interested in but formally restrict HRHs to working royals
They'd be working Royals then would they not?
Shoulda gone for Sentamu, what with the colour thang and him being retired. Charles is Welby's boss. But perhaps we are in a Don't mention the Y word period of royal PR.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non- violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Owning a gun for hunting or killing vermin is entirely reasonable.
I don't see why this is so controversial.
We are absurdly sentimental about animals in this country, presumably because we are so socially uneasy with our fellow humans so use them as a surrogate.
I am not worried about killing vermin. I am more concerned about killing people. You know fathers, mothers, daughters, nephews, etc.
You are aware that in the countryside, everyone is packin' ?
OK then - let us try the US approach and put a gun shop on every street corner. I am sure it will be fine because all gun owners are moral, upstanding citizens since it is well known that possessing a gun inculcates self-discipline and no gun owner would therefore ever shoot another person. Statistically no one has ever been shot, have they?
Fackin hell, Twitter is still an education. An account I follow which I thought was a pretty nerdy and respectable one on WWI battlefield topography and archaeology has liked the Andrew Bridgen tweet threatening to sue Hancock for calling him an antisemite.
Bridgen v Hancock would of course be the shittest Alien v Predator ever, and therefore hugely entertaining.
Is he an anti-semite? His comments can perhaps be deemed inappropriate and insensitive, but they aren't anti-semitic in content. If he was trying to belittle the holocaust it's an extremely oblique way to do it. I thought Sunak's response in parliament majoring on this angle of criticism was wrong. I think Sunak should have said that his comments had no scientific basis and that vaccines had been tested (which they have) and had enabled the UK to look beyond covid.
JTA.org - British parliament member booted from Conservative Party after comparing COVID-19 vaccination to Holocaust
. . . . “Andrew Bridgen has crossed a line, causing great offense in the process,” said Simon Hart, the Conservative Party’s chief whip. “As a nation we should be very proud of what has been achieved through the vaccine program. The vaccine is the best defense against COVID that we have.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a Conservative, linked Bridgen’s comments to antisemitism.
“Obviously, it is utterly unacceptable to make linkages and use language like that, and I’m determined that the scourge of antisemitism is eradicated,” Sunak said on the floor of the House of Commons.
In the U.K., as elsewhere in the world, anti-vaxxer and antisemitic rhetoric have often been deeply linked.
“The accusations that the pandemic is fake and that Jewish conspirators created the virus are the most dominant in anti-vaxxer communities,” said a report released by the British government in the fall of 2020. “Whilst the groups themselves are rarely established to spread antisemitism, they become a hotbed for antisemitic conspiracy theories.” . . .
What document was that? Got a link?
The document if it exists didn't yield to the following search either at DuckDuckGo or Google:
"anti-vaxxer communities" site:gov.uk
Edit:
Found it! This is the document that is referred to, and the words are on page 8 of it:
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non- violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Owning a gun for hunting or killing vermin is entirely reasonable.
I don't see why this is so controversial.
We are absurdly sentimental about animals in this country, presumably because we are so socially uneasy with our fellow humans so use them as a surrogate.
I am not worried about killing vermin. I am more concerned about killing people. You know fathers, mothers, daughters, nephews, etc.
You are aware that in the countryside, everyone is packin' ?
OK then - let us try the US approach and put a gun shop on every street corner. I am sure it will be fine because all gun owners are moral, upstanding citizens since it is well known that possessing a gun inculcates self-discipline and no gun owner would therefore ever shoot another person. Statistically no one has ever been shot, have they?
I’m not suggesting that.
Gun control in this country has worked and doesn’t need to be tinkered with, IMHO.
The problem the US has is a violent culture - look at the knife crime rate. In between shooting each other it’s stab stab stab.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non- violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Owning a gun for hunting or killing vermin is entirely reasonable.
I don't see why this is so controversial.
We are absurdly sentimental about animals in this country, presumably because we are so socially uneasy with our fellow humans so use them as a surrogate.
I am not worried about killing vermin. I am more concerned about killing people. You know fathers, mothers, daughters, nephews, etc.
You are aware that in the countryside, everyone is packin' ?
OK then - let us try the US approach and put a gun shop on every street corner. I am sure it will be fine because all gun owners are moral, upstanding citizens since it is well known that possessing a gun inculcates self-discipline and no gun owner would therefore ever shoot another person. Statistically no one has ever been shot, have they?
Or, we could stick with the ultra tight regulation but not actual blanket ban arrangement we have in place already. Calm down.
I doubt Harry and Meghan want to return to being working royals, because it means a level of press scrutiny or even harassment that both cannot tolerate.
They’ve also proven - to themselves, at least - that they can earn a living outside the royal system.
Peace talks plan: moves to reconcile Prince Harry with the Windsors before the coronation
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to be mediator between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family as apparently one of the few establishment figures trusted by both sides.
Personally I would offer them roles as Ambassadors to the Commonwealth as they are interested in but formally restrict HRHs to working royals
Hurrah for the ABofC. (Doesn't former ABofC Rowan Beardy have some formal role in the care of both princes?). Acknowledging the hurt we have done to others is one of the things that Christianity can do very well. And whatever is wrong with Harry's response, his claim of being damaged by the Institutional aspects of the Firm seems fair enough.
Bickering about HRH vs. not HRH seems like the kind of nonsense we should be getting away from. If it helps him fulfil an Ambassador to the Commonwealth role, and he's not in the UK much, I'd be inclined to let them both keep it.
Man Utd’s win just confirms they will finish runners up to Man City in my view in the title race this season. It’s not just the run of wins they are on, it’s the fantastic record against top sides. Man City, Liverpool, Tottenham, Arsenal all beaten by them now, that’s a great indicator of a top 2 finish come the end. Who comes 3rd 4th is a toss up between Tottenham, Newcastle and Arsenal - of those 3 sides Tottenham have by far the stronger bench and quality in the squad and better manager, should be one of the two for the CL spot.
Big day tomorrow in the battle for the top four then
Sure, Man Utd have beaten both Arsenal and Man City (they also got thumped at City), but those two wins were with a huge helping hand from the officials.
It's interesting to note that Man Utd have scored 29 goals this season. Eight of those have been against Arsenal and Man City.
Yes spot on - tomorrow afternoons match is a key one in the battle for top 4 place, denying spurs 2 points would be a good result for arsenal. spurs have the depth in quality of squad and experience of manager to go on a strong run in what remains of the season. I think Arsenal will get 4th spot ahead of Newcastle, but the bench is so thin, any more injuries and the inevitable wobble will be become slump - Arsenal missed top 4 last season because the squad was so thin of quality, clapped out tired and crocked players took the field, and the situation is already little different this time round.
I think we can dismiss misfiring Liverpool and Chelsea from making top 4 this season. I feel sorry for Klopp, it’s like the board havn’t helped him quick enough and it’s not his fault.
538 make Arsenal a 96% change to finish top four. You can lay them at 1.07 if you fancy making a decent amount of money (if you're right, of course).
I think Arsenal will make top 4, no chance of top 2 though - I know a bit about it because dear gf and her Dad are fans, but to me their transfer process has been just too slow to resolve the problem that cost them last season, an okay 11 that’s too knackered at the end without help; two or three quality players can knock the under 20’s off that bench this week, not just negotiate 1 person at a time. Mudryk doesn’t help them much this season, he hasn’t played 90 minutes for months! He might settle in okay in future though. Not worth more than Gapko tbh, they are paying way over the top.
Well, good job Mudryk is on his way to Stamford Bridge!
Re: Manhattan, the great monument to what might be called progressive (if hardly altruistic) prescience of the land pirates of Old New York = Central Park.
Pretty amazing, that a juicy BIG block of prime real estate was not paved over like 99.46% of the rest of the island.
Peace talks plan: moves to reconcile Prince Harry with the Windsors before the coronation
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to be mediator between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family as apparently one of the few establishment figures trusted by both sides.
Personally I would offer them roles as Ambassadors to the Commonwealth as they are interested in but formally restrict HRHs to working royals
They'd be working Royals then would they not?
Shoulda gone for Sentamu, what with the colour thang and him being retired. Charles is Welby's boss. But perhaps we are in a Don't mention the Y word period of royal PR.
Not full time working royals no and certainly not even part time working royals in the UK so they would still not be HRHs, though they would keep Duke and Duchess. It would be a similar solution as was found for Edward and Wallis. He became Governor of the Bahamas, they were Duke and Duchess of Windsor but she was not HRH.
Welby is more woke and liberal than Sentamu who despite being black is more socially conservative than the Archbishop of Canterbury and does not even approve of marrying divorcees like Meghan in church. Whereas Welby did Harry and Meghan’s wedding
Peace talks plan: moves to reconcile Prince Harry with the Windsors before the coronation
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to be mediator between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family as apparently one of the few establishment figures trusted by both sides.
Personally I would offer them roles as Ambassadors to the Commonwealth as they are interested in but formally restrict HRHs to working royals
I don't think H&M will be ready for a Commonwealth role until they start getting stale and yesterday's news in LA. Then they'll be glad to be embraced back into the family, and go and still be glamorous and feted in Australia, Canada etc. It won't take long but it isn't yet.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non- violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Owning a gun for hunting or killing vermin is entirely reasonable.
I don't see why this is so controversial.
We are absurdly sentimental about animals in this country, presumably because we are so socially uneasy with our fellow humans so use them as a surrogate.
I am not worried about killing vermin. I am more concerned about killing people. You know fathers, mothers, daughters, nephews, etc.
You are aware that in the countryside, everyone is packin' ?
OK then - let us try the US approach and put a gun shop on every street corner. I am sure it will be fine because all gun owners are moral, upstanding citizens since it is well known that possessing a gun inculcates self-discipline and no gun owner would therefore ever shoot another person. Statistically no one has ever been shot, have they?
I’m not suggesting that.
Gun control in this country has worked and doesn’t need to be tinkered with, IMHO.
The problem the US has is a violent culture - look at the knife crime rate. In between shooting each other it’s stab stab stab.
Sorry - you seemed to be saying that there are loads of guns in the UK and everything is peachy so what is the fuss?
I am objecting to Joe Bloggs running about with handguns because he rather fancied the idea. Not farmers, not vets - people who can justify it for animal or pest control.
BTW, just to be clear, regardless of the number of shotguns in the countryside, farmers are not allowed to shoot people either. Nor are vets.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non- violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Owning a gun for hunting or killing vermin is entirely reasonable.
I don't see why this is so controversial.
We are absurdly sentimental about animals in this country, presumably because we are so socially uneasy with our fellow humans so use them as a surrogate.
I am not worried about killing vermin. I am more concerned about killing people. You know fathers, mothers, daughters, nephews, etc.
You are aware that in the countryside, everyone is packin' ?
OK then - let us try the US approach and put a gun shop on every street corner. I am sure it will be fine because all gun owners are moral, upstanding citizens since it is well known that possessing a gun inculcates self-discipline and no gun owner would therefore ever shoot another person. Statistically no one has ever been shot, have they?
I’m not suggesting that.
Gun control in this country has worked and doesn’t need to be tinkered with, IMHO.
The problem the US has is a violent culture - look at the knife crime rate. In between shooting each other it’s stab stab stab.
Sorry - you seemed to be saying that there are loads of guns in the UK and everything is peachy so what is the fuss?
I am objecting to Joe Bloggs running about with handguns because he rather fancied the idea. Not farmers, not vets - people who can justify it for animal or pest control.
BTW, just to be clear, regardless of the number of shotguns in the countryside, farmers are not allowed to shoot people either. Nor are vets.
Handguns are completely illegal here since Dunblane. If you mean the US it's John Doe not Joe Bloggs.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non- violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Owning a gun for hunting or killing vermin is entirely reasonable.
I don't see why this is so controversial.
We are absurdly sentimental about animals in this country, presumably because we are so socially uneasy with our fellow humans so use them as a surrogate.
I am not worried about killing vermin. I am more concerned about killing people. You know fathers, mothers, daughters, nephews, etc.
You are aware that in the countryside, everyone is packin' ?
OK then - let us try the US approach and put a gun shop on every street corner. I am sure it will be fine because all gun owners are moral, upstanding citizens since it is well known that possessing a gun inculcates self-discipline and no gun owner would therefore ever shoot another person. Statistically no one has ever been shot, have they?
I’m not suggesting that.
Gun control in this country has worked and doesn’t need to be tinkered with, IMHO.
The problem the US has is a violent culture - look at the knife crime rate. In between shooting each other it’s stab stab stab.
Sorry - you seemed to be saying that there are loads of guns in the UK and everything is peachy so what is the fuss?
I am objecting to Joe Bloggs running about with handguns because he rather fancied the idea. Not farmers, not vets - people who can justify it for animal or pest control.
BTW, just to be clear, regardless of the number of shotguns in the countryside, farmers are not allowed to shoot people either. Nor are vets.
Handguns are completely illegal here since Dunblane. If you mean the US it's John Doe not Joe Bloggs.
The discussion was originally about gun ownership in general and since I am not American it is Jo(anne) Public
Peace talks plan: moves to reconcile Prince Harry with the Windsors before the coronation
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to be mediator between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family as apparently one of the few establishment figures trusted by both sides.
Personally I would offer them roles as Ambassadors to the Commonwealth as they are interested in but formally restrict HRHs to working royals
They'd be working Royals then would they not?
Shoulda gone for Sentamu, what with the colour thang and him being retired. Charles is Welby's boss. But perhaps we are in a Don't mention the Y word period of royal PR.
Not full time working royals no and certainly not even part time working royals in the UK so they would still not be HRHs, though they would keep Duke and Duchess. It would be a similar solution as was found for Edward and Wallis. He became Governor of the Bahamas, they were Duke and Duchess of Windsor but she was not HRH.
Welby is more woke and liberal than Sentamu who despite being black is more socially conservative than the Archbishop of Canterbury and does not even approve of marrying divorcees like Meghan in church. Whereas Welby did Harry and Meghan’s wedding
Welby did that because he is Charles's and was HMQ's lackey. That's the point.
I doubt Harry and Meghan want to return to being working royals, because it means a level of press scrutiny or even harassment that both cannot tolerate.
They’ve also proven - to themselves, at least - that they can earn a living outside the royal system.
If we're talking scrutiny by the British Tabloid Press, that's probably fair enough.
Today's Times had a pretty balanced review of Spare today. It made the point that Harry clearly blames tabloid hacks both for ruining his life and killing his mother. And for all the pomposity that the Mail, Express and so on downwards throw up, he's got a point.
Guns appear, literally, to have become a religion in the IS.
Obituary for the Utah man who fatally shot his five children, mother-in-law and estranged wife: “Michael made it a point to spend quality time with each and every one of his children. Michael enjoyed making memories with the family.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614063872771604486
And if that’s not gross enough, the wife’s family put out a statement supporting … guns: “This is the type of loss that will continue to occur in families, communities and this nation when protective arms are no longer accessible.” https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1614081794852409344
I guess lots of Americans just like shooting each other.
See Switzerland - heavily armed and very very low rate of shooting each other.
Or Israel…
Oh... some whataboutery!!!
What about Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, etc, etc, with huge gun crime statistics. Besides, what exactly are guns for other than for killing? Do you think the inventor said "I know - let us invent a new hobby with these projectile accelerating devices. That will be fun..."
The gun advocates - and I am actually one of them - will never be able to make a reasoned case for guns in the US for as long as so many of them resist the basic common sense rules. You can have countries with high gun ownership. But to have that you also need sensible rules - background checks, bans for those with mental issues, age limits and cooling off periods. Only once those are in place can you even begin to have a proper debate about gun ownership.
My personal position is that anyone wanting to possess a gun needs putting on some sort of watch list. How many devices can you buy on the basis that you want to purchase something that can only be used for killing - and in the case of handguns, almost exclusively for killing people - and not be reported to the cops?
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non- violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
Owning a gun for hunting or killing vermin is entirely reasonable.
I don't see why this is so controversial.
We are absurdly sentimental about animals in this country, presumably because we are so socially uneasy with our fellow humans so use them as a surrogate.
I am not worried about killing vermin. I am more concerned about killing people. You know fathers, mothers, daughters, nephews, etc.
You are aware that in the countryside, everyone is packin' ?
OK then - let us try the US approach and put a gun shop on every street corner. I am sure it will be fine because all gun owners are moral, upstanding citizens since it is well known that possessing a gun inculcates self-discipline and no gun owner would therefore ever shoot another person. Statistically no one has ever been shot, have they?
I’m not suggesting that.
Gun control in this country has worked and doesn’t need to be tinkered with, IMHO.
The problem the US has is a violent culture - look at the knife crime rate. In between shooting each other it’s stab stab stab.
Sorry - you seemed to be saying that there are loads of guns in the UK and everything is peachy so what is the fuss?
I am objecting to Joe Bloggs running about with handguns because he rather fancied the idea. Not farmers, not vets - people who can justify it for animal or pest control.
BTW, just to be clear, regardless of the number of shotguns in the countryside, farmers are not allowed to shoot people either. Nor are vets.
Handguns are completely illegal here since Dunblane. If you mean the US it's John Doe not Joe Bloggs.
The discussion was originally about gun ownership in general and since I am not American it is Jo(anne) Public
Well, OK. Not sure what argument you are having, who with, then. No second amendmenters here.
Peace talks plan: moves to reconcile Prince Harry with the Windsors before the coronation
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to be mediator between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family as apparently one of the few establishment figures trusted by both sides.
Personally I would offer them roles as Ambassadors to the Commonwealth as they are interested in but formally restrict HRHs to working royals
They'd be working Royals then would they not?
Shoulda gone for Sentamu, what with the colour thang and him being retired. Charles is Welby's boss. But perhaps we are in a Don't mention the Y word period of royal PR.
Not full time working royals no and certainly not even part time working royals in the UK so they would still not be HRHs, though they would keep Duke and Duchess. It would be a similar solution as was found for Edward and Wallis. He became Governor of the Bahamas, they were Duke and Duchess of Windsor but she was not HRH.
Welby is more woke and liberal than Sentamu who despite being black is more socially conservative than the Archbishop of Canterbury and does not even approve of marrying divorcees like Meghan in church. Whereas Welby did Harry and Meghan’s wedding
Welby did that because he is Charles's and was HMQ's lackey. That's the point.
The Church of England allows clergy to marry divorcees unlike say the Roman Catholic Church (who just allow it for those like Boris who have never been married in a Catholic Church before) but on a conscience basis
I doubt Harry and Meghan want to return to being working royals, because it means a level of press scrutiny or even harassment that both cannot tolerate.
They’ve also proven - to themselves, at least - that they can earn a living outside the royal system.
If we're talking scrutiny by the British Tabloid Press, that's probably fair enough.
Today's Times had a pretty balanced review of Spare today. It made the point that Harry clearly blames tabloid hacks both for ruining his life and killing his mother. And for all the pomposity that the Mail, Express and so on downwards throw up, he's got a point.
A bit of a point. The tabloids got nowhere with ruining HMQ's life or Princess Anne's, say: they need material to work with. I am pretty certain that he blames his stepmother, father and the press in that order.
Peace talks plan: moves to reconcile Prince Harry with the Windsors before the coronation
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to be mediator between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family as apparently one of the few establishment figures trusted by both sides.
Personally I would offer them roles as Ambassadors to the Commonwealth as they are interested in but formally restrict HRHs to working royals
They'd be working Royals then would they not?
Shoulda gone for Sentamu, what with the colour thang and him being retired. Charles is Welby's boss. But perhaps we are in a Don't mention the Y word period of royal PR.
Not full time working royals no and certainly not even part time working royals in the UK so they would still not be HRHs, though they would keep Duke and Duchess. It would be a similar solution as was found for Edward and Wallis. He became Governor of the Bahamas, they were Duke and Duchess of Windsor but she was not HRH.
Welby is more woke and liberal than Sentamu who despite being black is more socially conservative than the Archbishop of Canterbury and does not even approve of marrying divorcees like Meghan in church. Whereas Welby did Harry and Meghan’s wedding
Welby did that because he is Charles's and was HMQ's lackey. That's the point.
The Church of England allows clergy to marry divorcees unlike say the Roman Catholic Church (who just allow it for those like Boris who have never been married in a Catholic Church before) but on a conscience basis
And on our left, Taiwanese schoolchildren, you will see Westminster Cathedral...
Peace talks plan: moves to reconcile Prince Harry with the Windsors before the coronation
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to be mediator between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family as apparently one of the few establishment figures trusted by both sides.
Personally I would offer them roles as Ambassadors to the Commonwealth as they are interested in but formally restrict HRHs to working royals
They'd be working Royals then would they not?
Shoulda gone for Sentamu, what with the colour thang and him being retired. Charles is Welby's boss. But perhaps we are in a Don't mention the Y word period of royal PR.
Not full time working royals no and certainly not even part time working royals in the UK so they would still not be HRHs, though they would keep Duke and Duchess. It would be a similar solution as was found for Edward and Wallis. He became Governor of the Bahamas, they were Duke and Duchess of Windsor but she was not HRH.
Welby is more woke and liberal than Sentamu who despite being black is more socially conservative than the Archbishop of Canterbury and does not even approve of marrying divorcees like Meghan in church. Whereas Welby did Harry and Meghan’s wedding
Welby did that because he is Charles's and was HMQ's lackey. That's the point.
The Church of England allows clergy to marry divorcees unlike say the Roman Catholic Church (who just allow it for those like Boris who have never been married in a Catholic Church before) but on a conscience basis
Indeed, an Archbishop in these islands is a divorcee who has remarried.
Peace talks plan: moves to reconcile Prince Harry with the Windsors before the coronation
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to be mediator between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family as apparently one of the few establishment figures trusted by both sides.
Personally I would offer them roles as Ambassadors to the Commonwealth as they are interested in but formally restrict HRHs to working royals
They'd be working Royals then would they not?
Shoulda gone for Sentamu, what with the colour thang and him being retired. Charles is Welby's boss. But perhaps we are in a Don't mention the Y word period of royal PR.
Not full time working royals no and certainly not even part time working royals in the UK so they would still not be HRHs, though they would keep Duke and Duchess. It would be a similar solution as was found for Edward and Wallis. He became Governor of the Bahamas, they were Duke and Duchess of Windsor but she was not HRH.
Welby is more woke and liberal than Sentamu who despite being black is more socially conservative than the Archbishop of Canterbury and does not even approve of marrying divorcees like Meghan in church. Whereas Welby did Harry and Meghan’s wedding
Welby did that because he is Charles's and was HMQ's lackey. That's the point.
The Church of England allows clergy to marry divorcees unlike say the Roman Catholic Church (who just allow it for those like Boris who have never been married in a Catholic Church before) but on a conscience basis
Indeed, an Archbishop in these islands is a divorcee who has remarried.
I never previously had you down as a magic mushroom enthusiast.
Peace talks plan: moves to reconcile Prince Harry with the Windsors before the coronation
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to be mediator between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family as apparently one of the few establishment figures trusted by both sides.
Personally I would offer them roles as Ambassadors to the Commonwealth as they are interested in but formally restrict HRHs to working royals
They'd be working Royals then would they not?
Shoulda gone for Sentamu, what with the colour thang and him being retired. Charles is Welby's boss. But perhaps we are in a Don't mention the Y word period of royal PR.
Not full time working royals no and certainly not even part time working royals in the UK so they would still not be HRHs, though they would keep Duke and Duchess. It would be a similar solution as was found for Edward and Wallis. He became Governor of the Bahamas, they were Duke and Duchess of Windsor but she was not HRH.
Welby is more woke and liberal than Sentamu who despite being black is more socially conservative than the Archbishop of Canterbury and does not even approve of marrying divorcees like Meghan in church. Whereas Welby did Harry and Meghan’s wedding
Welby did that because he is Charles's and was HMQ's lackey. That's the point.
The Church of England allows clergy to marry divorcees unlike say the Roman Catholic Church (who just allow it for those like Boris who have never been married in a Catholic Church before) but on a conscience basis
Indeed, an Archbishop in these islands is a divorcee who has remarried.
I never previously had you down as a magic mushroom enthusiast.
You thought I played with my massive organ merely for my own amusement?
I was having a consultation about that today actually. It's got lots of cracks in it from overuse and is struggling to maintain full pressure.
I doubt Harry and Meghan want to return to being working royals, because it means a level of press scrutiny or even harassment that both cannot tolerate.
They’ve also proven - to themselves, at least - that they can earn a living outside the royal system.
If we're talking scrutiny by the British Tabloid Press, that's probably fair enough.
Today's Times had a pretty balanced review of Spare today. It made the point that Harry clearly blames tabloid hacks both for ruining his life and killing his mother. And for all the pomposity that the Mail, Express and so on downwards throw up, he's got a point.
That point is hardly news, is it?
What's struck me, and which I didn't fully appreciate until Harry's book (which I have not read except as reported) is the degree of to which he is alienated from his brother and father.
> Until recent years, the image(s) presented were of two brothers united like Damon and Pythius . . . not Romulus versus Remus. Seems like just a few years ago, they were both serving as helicopter pilots, Harry in combat and William in air rescue, together serving Queen and country.
> As for Charles, well remember a very savvy & sagacious strategist telling me at time of Diana's demise, that the test for her ex going forward - and climbing out of the deep hole he'd dug for himself in public opinion - was how well he did by his sons as a Dad. And for years, decades, it looked like Charles was doing very well on this score.
Peace talks plan: moves to reconcile Prince Harry with the Windsors before the coronation
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby to be mediator between the Sussexes and the rest of the royal family as apparently one of the few establishment figures trusted by both sides.
Personally I would offer them roles as Ambassadors to the Commonwealth as they are interested in but formally restrict HRHs to working royals
They'd be working Royals then would they not?
Shoulda gone for Sentamu, what with the colour thang and him being retired. Charles is Welby's boss. But perhaps we are in a Don't mention the Y word period of royal PR.
Not full time working royals no and certainly not even part time working royals in the UK so they would still not be HRHs, though they would keep Duke and Duchess. It would be a similar solution as was found for Edward and Wallis. He became Governor of the Bahamas, they were Duke and Duchess of Windsor but she was not HRH.
Welby is more woke and liberal than Sentamu who despite being black is more socially conservative than the Archbishop of Canterbury and does not even approve of marrying divorcees like Meghan in church. Whereas Welby did Harry and Meghan’s wedding
Welby did that because he is Charles's and was HMQ's lackey. That's the point.
The Church of England allows clergy to marry divorcees unlike say the Roman Catholic Church (who just allow it for those like Boris who have never been married in a Catholic Church before) but on a conscience basis
Indeed, an Archbishop in these islands is a divorcee who has remarried.
I never previously had you down as a magic mushroom enthusiast.
You thought I played with my massive organ merely for my own amusement?
I was having a consultation about that today actually. It's got lots of cracks in it from overuse and is struggling to maintain full pressure.
In the good old days assigning another choirboy to the pump handle would restore me to full volume, but these days I need electricity to power my Tuba Magna. Still, the ladies of the congregation appreciate the end result.
Comments
There are some green schemes I do support - tidal is a sensible and reliable form of power generation, and we should go for it. If he's getting behind that, good on him. If it's more mindless ramping of solar and wind for the UK, meh.
NOT among his better WW2 decisions. Along with Leros fiasco.
I'm not dismissing the idea but I do think there's a security dimension that is being blithely ignored.
By contrast, tidal seems ultra clean and ultra safe.
. . . . “Andrew Bridgen has crossed a line, causing great offense in the process,” said Simon Hart, the Conservative Party’s chief whip. “As a nation we should be very proud of what has been achieved through the vaccine program. The vaccine is the best defense against COVID that we have.”
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, a Conservative, linked Bridgen’s comments to antisemitism.
“Obviously, it is utterly unacceptable to make linkages and use language like that, and I’m determined that the scourge of antisemitism is eradicated,” Sunak said on the floor of the House of Commons.
In the U.K., as elsewhere in the world, anti-vaxxer and antisemitic rhetoric have often been deeply linked.
“The accusations that the pandemic is fake and that Jewish conspirators created the virus are the most dominant in anti-vaxxer communities,” said a report released by the British government in the fall of 2020. “Whilst the groups themselves are rarely established to spread antisemitism, they become a hotbed for antisemitic conspiracy theories.” . . .
The 9.2 cruisers were an attempt to build a maximum cruiser.
One argument against them was that they weren’t maximal enough - for nearly the same money you could have 2 x 15” ships with the same speed. Which could take on anything.
How do you like your Baked Alaska? :-)
Hence people more to the left, who tend to like public good, like vaccines. And individualists tend to be more on the right and dislike them?"
That does seem to be part of the reason for the left/right split in the US. (I would guess that explains much of Senator Rand Paul's thinking, for example.)
But, as far as I can tell, until recently, opposition to vaccines here came more from the "natural is good" left. So, for example, people who worry about GMO foods would be more likely to oppose vaccines, too.
The increase in opposition to vaccines on the right comes, I believe, partly from an increasing distrust of our news organizations. (An increase that isn't entirely unwarranted.) That was much magnified by Trump, of course, with the sad effect that many who followed him suffered in various ways.
(Some time ago I came up with this summary: If you follow Trump, you risk your money, your health, and even, for some, your freedom.)
I have a modicum of sympathy for the man - he had conspired, agitated and worked his way toward his life ambition of becoming Prime Minister for the thick end of 25 years betraying friends and enemies alike so that by the summer of 2019 the Conservative Party begged him to save them from an oblivion he had done so much to create.
He became Leader and then easily saw off Jeremy Corbyn to be the most powerful politician since Blair with a strong mandate, a new legion of MPs beholden to him and the world at his feet. He could rule for a decade or more and combine the best of his two idols, Thatcher and Churchill, transforming the country he loved for the 21st century and establishing a political legacy few could surpass.
Within 4 weeks of that election win, he was facing the biggest crisis of a generation and the biggest public health crisis of modern times. This time the enemy wouldn't respond to Churchillean prose - it was a virus, relentless and remorseless.
Churchill was an ordinary peacetime politician who was transformed to greatness by extraordinary circumstances. Johnson was an ordinary peacetime politician who was brought down by extraordinary circumstances. He needed an inheritance analogous to that of Blair - he had the mandate to transform as did Thatcher but in the end he couldn't cope with the scale of what confronted him and the manner with which he comported himself in office was out of touch with the mores of the time.
In the end, the enemies he made on the road to the top returned and had their revenge.
Klopp almost speechless
And as for Everton sending death threats to board members is unacceptable
https://www.gocomics.com/lola/2023/01/10
(He might want to send a note of thanks to Todd Clark.)
However, for ANY politico to compare vaccinations to the Holocaust is either deliberately incendiary OR absurdly moronic. Not exactly first time that this "linkage" has been suggested - and vociferously condemned.
So which is Brigden? My guess is - both.
That is the entirety of his legacy
Mind you, if the 'holocaust' tweet had been posted by J. Corbyn I'd bet he wouldn't have been given the benefit of the doubt.
The last 2 said 29% for Conservatives. I think it will say the same if comes out today, or maybe drop 1 point.
What really exposed him was when the crisis went away, and it became clear that he didn't really have an agenda of his own, apart from being a Great Prime Minister who would Go Down In History. And that's not enough, really.
I am offering him a colorful "Free Tibet" bumper sticker -- if he will promise to display it prominently.
(I have three of them, and plan to offer them to other prominent people who depend on the ChiComs. I don't expect to run out of them before the end of this year. And, if I get any replies, I'll share them, publicly.)
Hells bells, people have been arrested for trying to buy ammonium nitrate (bombs) or castor beans (ricin) and both of those have actual non-violent uses as fertiliser or medicine. But a handgun? "Certainly! And how many boxes of bullets would you like?"
The problem with Boris is that he recognised himself in the second (although AFAIK Churchill was 100% loyal to Clemmie) and therefore assumed he must also be the first too.
He wasn't and isn't.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx
Covid actually gave him cover, and if he had been able to set some sort of an example and practice what he preached, he’d still be in office.
For Stodge, Churchill’s oratory was never really aimed at the enemy, but to boost morale at home, and to influence the Americans.
There weren't actually any other practicable ways to kill them quickly and humanely. Captive bolts had significant drawbacks (no pun intended).
The document if it exists didn't yield to the following search either at DuckDuckGo or Google:
"anti-vaxxer communities" site:gov.uk
Edit:
Found it! This is the document that is referred to, and the words are on page 8 of it:
https://combatantisemitism.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Antisemitism-antivaxxer-report.pdf
It was issued by the Office of HMG's Independent Adviser on Antisemitism.
That doesn't make him good at politics of course.
I think we can dismiss misfiring Liverpool and Chelsea from making top 4 this season. I feel sorry for Klopp, it’s like the board havn’t helped him quick enough and it’s not his fault.
The little old lady who owned the horse, appalled, went into the house and came back with a Webley in .455. Which finished the poor beast off with one shot.
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/artificial-incompetence
Gove became a great campaigning editor of the Sunday Times, who was then somehow persuaded to revive A Stab In The Dark on Channel 4, which is somehow Not Shit.
Johnson edits the Telegraph, which everyone agrees is a sparkling daily publication, the first post-news newspaper. He is a regular guest host on HIGNFY, who taunts Govey when he gets better ratings.
Johnson occasionally wonders what would have happened if he'd taken politics seriously.
We are absurdly sentimental about animals in this country, presumably because we are so socially uneasy with our fellow humans so use them as a surrogate.
"Serious" implies doesn't get delayed by wallies such as Nick Bostrom, or by some rubbishy film made by Stanley Kubrick.
London also has all these weird gyratories and other schemes, some of which have admittedly been removed, but seem to further clog and destroy localities where they still remain.
The disaster that is Aldgate, for example, or the mad five way system that is King’s Cross-Caledonian-Euston-Gray’s Inn Road.
Tl:Dr.
Barclay wants to be able to seriously negotiate a better deal. Asks Unions to help him.
Sunak and Hunt don't want to know.
My take. Tory Party is split on everything.
On the London case, I have a copy of the original London plan that had concentric rings of highways mapped out around the capital, which included a South Circular built to a similar standard to the North. These proposals over-reached and were strongly resisted and eventually watered down considerably, although they did plant the seed that eventually led to the M25.
Farmers. Farmers mums.
https://clip.cafe/hot-fuzz-2007/i-may-not-be-a-man-of-god/
Royal insiders believe there’s a chance of a reunion. But they need to persuade William and Kate to put Harry’s outbursts behind them
A royal source, who has the King’s ear and who knows the Sussexes well, believes a reconciliation meeting will happen in the coming months and needs to take place before the coronation on Saturday, May 6. “It’s going to take flexibility on all sides, but it can be done, it’s fixable,” says the source. “It needs Harry over here, in the room with the King and Prince of Wales, a couple of other family members, some of ‘his people’ he trusts who always had his back, so he doesn’t think he’s being ambushed. Someone like Elf [Ed Lane Fox, Harry’s former private secretary] and Christopher [Lord Geidt, the late Queen’s former private secretary who advised the Sussexes].
“Both sides need to hold their hands up and admit we didn’t get everything right, and we got a lot wrong, and we have to say to him ‘we understand the pain you’ve been through’. The King can do it.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/peace-talks-plan-moves-to-reconcile-prince-harry-with-the-windsors-before-the-coronation-w3v7t6j2c
And of course there's that archetype of an iron leader facing down greedy Communist Unions.
Even if it bears no reality to the circumstances.
Citeh is different. Much more possession based, much easier to play with the ball.
And looking at the table on this chilly Jan evening, it’s not impossible that United could actually win the league this season.
That's perhaps what the two have in common. Both are too frighteningly dense to realise when stuff crosses a line and causes people to object and take offence.
Personally I would offer them roles as Ambassadors to the Commonwealth as they are interested in but formally restrict HRHs to working royals
In the end everyone wanted to get back to normal life, so one of my heroes, Robert Hooke, was commissioned to survey the old street structure and set out the roads as they had been.
It's interesting to think what the city would have been like if they had gone ahead. In some ways, perhaps, worse.
e.g. https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/great-fire-london-how-science-rebuilt-city#&gid=1&pid=1 or https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stories/great-fire-london-how-science-rebuilt-city#&gid=1&pid=2
With respect to US land survey system, the contrast between the "meets and bounds" chaos in Kentucky and Virginia, and the way more orderly and coherent situation north of the Ohio River, was a major impetus for Kentucky settlers (such Abe Lincoln's pa) to move out and resettle in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois.
In New York, the rectangular shape of Manhattan lent itself to grid system north of the area already developed, with Broadway and other roads already there to show the way.
Perhaps worth mentioning, that it was the same generation (it's successor) that conceived, financed and constructed the Erie Canal - THE key infrastructure project of the early Republic, which make New York City THE major metropolis of North America, and New York State the Empire State.
And REALLY opened up the West - starting with the Great Lakes - to MAJOR development, mass migration and foreign immigration, and rapid expansion of American agriculture, commerce and above all industry.
There are still or two weird outcrops remaining, such as “Mount Tom”, upon which Edgar Allan Poe liked to sit and gaze out over the Hudson River.
https://ephemeralnewyork.wordpress.com/2016/05/23/a-rocky-west-side-knoll-inspires-edgar-allan-poe/
The rock is also an essential feature of Central Park.
Shoulda gone for Sentamu, what with the colour thang and him being retired. Charles is Welby's boss. But perhaps we are in a Don't mention the Y word period of royal PR.
Gun control in this country has worked and doesn’t need to be tinkered with, IMHO.
The problem the US has is a violent culture - look at the knife crime rate. In between shooting each other it’s stab stab stab.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD2lhNnlDbQ
They’ve also proven - to themselves, at least - that they can earn a living outside the royal system.
Bickering about HRH vs. not HRH seems like the kind of nonsense we should be getting away from. If it helps him fulfil an Ambassador to the Commonwealth role, and he's not in the UK much, I'd be inclined to let them both keep it.
Pretty amazing, that a juicy BIG block of prime real estate was not paved over like 99.46% of the rest of the island.
Welby is more woke and liberal than Sentamu who despite being black is more socially conservative than the Archbishop of Canterbury and does not even approve of marrying divorcees like Meghan in church. Whereas Welby did Harry and Meghan’s wedding
I am objecting to Joe Bloggs running about with handguns because he rather fancied the idea. Not farmers, not vets - people who can justify it for animal or pest control.
BTW, just to be clear, regardless of the number of shotguns in the countryside, farmers are not allowed to shoot people either. Nor are vets.
Today's Times had a pretty balanced review of Spare today. It made the point that Harry clearly blames tabloid hacks both for ruining his life and killing his mother. And for all the pomposity that the Mail, Express and so on downwards throw up, he's got a point.
I was having a consultation about that today actually. It's got lots of cracks in it from overuse and is struggling to maintain full pressure.
What's struck me, and which I didn't fully appreciate until Harry's book (which I have not read except as reported) is the degree of to which he is alienated from his brother and father.
> Until recent years, the image(s) presented were of two brothers united like Damon and Pythius . . . not Romulus versus Remus. Seems like just a few years ago, they were both serving as helicopter pilots, Harry in combat and William in air rescue, together serving Queen and country.
> As for Charles, well remember a very savvy & sagacious strategist telling me at time of Diana's demise, that the test for her ex going forward - and climbing out of the deep hole he'd dug for himself in public opinion - was how well he did by his sons as a Dad. And for years, decades, it looked like Charles was doing very well on this score.