Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Trump looks a good bet for the WH2024 nomination – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,816
    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Plus look at our society. Try to buy a Birthday/Anniversary/Congratulations on your New Job/Happy 10th Birthday card and 85% of them use some droll alcohol/gin reference.

    We get plastered, blotto, sloshed, etc. All vaguely heroic-sounding states.

    Go to LHR or any airport at 8.30am and the bars are chock full with people drinking.

    Then go to A&E on a Friday or Saturday night and see what this causes.

    As I, ahem, may have mentioned I used to do doorwork in Central London on Fridays and Saturdays and although Friday was marginally better (people simply not having had enough time to get fuelled up), Saturdays were often carnage.

    The UK does have a fantastically ugly relationship with alcohol. Only Russia comes close in my experience.

    Since my early 20s I've only ever had one tot of pusser's on Taranto Night and that's it for the year but I jacked that in about 5 years when we ran out and I couldn't be arsed to get another bottle. What I've noticed is that other people can be quite fantastically discommoded if you refuse to drink,
    Then you haven’t experienced much

    There are many countries with equally fucked up relationships with alcohol, if not worse. All over the world

    Korea can be fucking punchy. Japan is weird (but not violent). Parts of Australia - white and aboriginal - wow. Cities in America, Finland. The Nordics. Cities in Thailand. Central Asia. Greenland. Etc etc etc

    What Britain does have, almost uniquely, is an intense pub culture. Very few societies revolve around The Place Where You Drink as much as we do (even now, despite pub closures) .This is both good and bad
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,129
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    That's what I mean. You need to forget about materiality (of impact) to argue that this merits a Westminster veto. And if you do that you're setting a precedent that affects devolution. Dilutes what it means.

    I don't think the bill is a mistake but, no, that's not the point when it comes to the intervention. The point is it was a bill properly passed by the democratic parliament of Scotland. You need big big reasons to veto that.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,590
    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Plus look at our society. Try to buy a Birthday/Anniversary/Congratulations on your New Job/Happy 10th Birthday card and 85% of them use some droll alcohol/gin reference.

    We get plastered, blotto, sloshed, etc. All vaguely heroic-sounding states.

    Go to LHR or any airport at 8.30am and the bars are chock full with people drinking.

    Then go to A&E on a Friday or Saturday night and see what this causes.

    As I, ahem, may have mentioned I used to do doorwork in Central London on Fridays and Saturdays and although Friday was marginally better (people simply not having had enough time to get fuelled up), Saturdays were often carnage.

    The UK does have a fantastically ugly relationship with alcohol. Only Russia comes close in my experience.

    Since my early 20s I've only ever had one tot of pusser's on Taranto Night and that's it for the year but I jacked that in about 5 years when we ran out and I couldn't be arsed to get another bottle. What I've noticed is that other people can be quite fantastically discommoded if you refuse to drink,
    Then you haven’t experienced much

    There are many countries with equally fucked up relationships with alcohol, if not worse. All over the world

    Korea can be fucking punchy. Japan is weird (but not violent). Parts of Australia - white and aboriginal - wow. Cities in America, Finland. The Nordics. Cities in Thailand. Central Asia. Greenland. Etc etc etc

    What Britain does have, almost uniquely, is an intense pub culture. Very few societies revolve around The Place Where You Drink as much as we do (even now, despite pub closures) .This is both good and bad
    Blending (so to speak) current topics), this might be a useful source of ideas:

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/jan/18/moment-that-changed-me-i-began-wearing-skirts-with-pockets-big-enough-to-hold-wine-bottle

    Sensible lady; Mrs C always used to put pockets into the full 1950s-style skirts that she used to wear for casual when we were younger.
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,057
    edited January 2023
    Leon said:

    Who the fuck wants to live on TWO drinks a week?

    Especially if you have to live in…… Canada

    It could happen if you drink Canada Dry.

    (A variation of a theme, courtesy of George Best).
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,372
    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    Alternative view:

    Sturgeon's GRR Bill. Former Supreme Court judge Lord Hope's devastating assessment of SG's legal challenge chance of success? [VIDEO]

    https://twitter.com/markthehibby/status/1615496497147035648

    The test apparently is not whether Jack is “right” but whether his concerns are “reasonable”. So ScotGov has to prove they are unreasonable. Given all the advice they were given, but ignored, about interaction with the Equality Act before they passed the bill that may not be a hill they wish to die on.

    Timely reminder. Now 18 months since Supreme Court ruled UN Convention on Rights of Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill was unlawful because exceeded devolved powers. FM said it left her unable to fully protect children’s rights She is still to bring back an amended bill. 1/2

    The Q of which government is making a “full frontal assault” on devolution over the GRR bill will similarly be resolved in court with onus potentially placed on SG to bring back an amended bill which satisfies GRA reform and legal competence. 2/2


    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1615116932516028420


    The S35 order is gift week for the SNP. It doesn't matter about the GRR bill, its now an assault on Westminster Tories on Holyrood to impose a Tory veto on anything they do. That stalwart of Scottish independence Lord Falconer tears the Tory argument apart in a detailed thread: https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    What it means for Scotland isn't good.
    This will be the third time the SNP have been told
    they were exceeding their powers - the first two in the courts. Did either of the earlier two see a surge in support for independence? The first
    rebuff was over children’s rights, which one might think a more sympathetic case than the current one.
    Alistair Jack’s statement seemed pretty cogent to me.
    A former Lord Chancellor has posted a long twitter thread detailing why he believes the opposite to be true. Its a political football, and not helped by that tool DRoss standing up in the Commons saying it was right the S35 be applied because he lost a debate in Holyrood.
    The most hilarious commentary is from the self deceiving numpties claiming this has all been 'engineered' by the Nats. An actual Scotch expert:



    Yes, it’s totally preposterous that the Scottish government are trying to engineer a row, about something over which they were repeatedly warned over the past few months would overreach their devolved powers.

    Edit: Nats all co-ordinating “since 2016” and “six years”, as if this wasn’t something they passed only a fortnight ago.
    I see your insights from a great distance are even more knowledgeable about Scottish politics than they are about English.
    I do have to concede that people who bleated incessantly about the tyranny of the EU setting common standards for vacuum cleaners and lied about the EU banning the UJ on British farm produce are experts in what is an engineered row.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,590
    edited January 2023

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    Alternative view:

    Sturgeon's GRR Bill. Former Supreme Court judge Lord Hope's devastating assessment of SG's legal challenge chance of success? [VIDEO]

    https://twitter.com/markthehibby/status/1615496497147035648

    The test apparently is not whether Jack is “right” but whether his concerns are “reasonable”. So ScotGov has to prove they are unreasonable. Given all the advice they were given, but ignored, about interaction with the Equality Act before they passed the bill that may not be a hill they wish to die on.

    Timely reminder. Now 18 months since Supreme Court ruled UN Convention on Rights of Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill was unlawful because exceeded devolved powers. FM said it left her unable to fully protect children’s rights She is still to bring back an amended bill. 1/2

    The Q of which government is making a “full frontal assault” on devolution over the GRR bill will similarly be resolved in court with onus potentially placed on SG to bring back an amended bill which satisfies GRA reform and legal competence. 2/2


    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1615116932516028420


    The S35 order is gift week for the SNP. It doesn't matter about the GRR bill, its now an assault on Westminster Tories on Holyrood to impose a Tory veto on anything they do. That stalwart of Scottish independence Lord Falconer tears the Tory argument apart in a detailed thread: https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    What it means for Scotland isn't good.
    This will be the third time the SNP have been told
    they were exceeding their powers - the first two in the courts. Did either of the earlier two see a surge in support for independence? The first
    rebuff was over children’s rights, which one might think a more sympathetic case than the current one.
    Alistair Jack’s statement seemed pretty cogent to me.
    A former Lord Chancellor has posted a long twitter thread detailing why he believes the opposite to be true. Its a political football, and not helped by that tool DRoss standing up in the Commons saying it was right the S35 be applied because he lost a debate in Holyrood.
    The most hilarious commentary is from the self deceiving numpties claiming this has all been 'engineered' by the Nats. An actual Scotch expert:



    Yes, it’s totally preposterous that the Scottish government are trying to engineer a row, about something over which they were repeatedly warned over the past few months would overreach their devolved powers.

    Edit: Nats all co-ordinating “since 2016” and “six years”, as if this wasn’t something they passed only a fortnight ago.
    I see your insights from a great distance are even more knowledgeable about Scottish politics than they are about English.
    I do have to concede that people who bleated incessantly about the tyranny of the EU setting common standards for vacuum cleaners and lied about the EU banning the UJ on British farm produce are experts in what is an engineered row.
    Also rather odd to whine about the bill being passed a fortnight ago when it was being discussed for 6 years. You'd think that HMG in London had not bothered to keep an eye on what HMG in Scotland and the Holyrood Parliament were doing.

    Edit: And the '6 years' point is being made by people of all parties. It's not what some of us like to call a 'Nat' thing, but a cross-party one.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,982
    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Plus look at our society. Try to buy a Birthday/Anniversary/Congratulations on your New Job/Happy 10th Birthday card and 85% of them use some droll alcohol/gin reference.

    We get plastered, blotto, sloshed, etc. All vaguely heroic-sounding states.

    Go to LHR or any airport at 8.30am and the bars are chock full with people drinking.

    Then go to A&E on a Friday or Saturday night and see what this causes.

    As I, ahem, may have mentioned I used to do doorwork in Central London on Fridays and Saturdays and although Friday was marginally better (people simply not having had enough time to get fuelled up), Saturdays were often carnage.

    The UK does have a fantastically ugly relationship with alcohol. Only Russia comes close in my experience.

    Since my early 20s I've only ever had one tot of pusser's on Taranto Night and that's it for the year but I jacked that in about 5 years when we ran out and I couldn't be arsed to get another bottle. What I've noticed is that other people can be quite fantastically discommoded if you refuse to drink,
    Then you haven’t experienced much

    I'm talking about the social pressure from others to drink. I've only really experienced that in the UK and Russia. There are plenty of other places where people cane the hooch but they don't seem to care as much if other people don't.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,398
    On drinking, imho the studies are a bit uncertain. Too many confounders etc and everyone lies about alcohol intake. There's a general picture, but it's very hard to set a 'safe' or even 'low risk' level. Timing could be as important as overall quantity.

    Alcohol is bad for you, for sure (this is the general picture) but then most things are in excess (to greater or lesser extents). The protective effects of a glass of red wine etc studies have been largely discredited - failed to account for other things. There's also the point that we're all different and epidemiology is great at working out average effects but that masks a lot of differences between different people.

    As pointed out by others, many things we do will, on average, reduce healthy life expectancy - any extreme sports (compared to being active in less exciting ways), driving to see friends/family, having children (possibly), not sleeping enough (related!). But it would be a pretty empty (if possibly long) life living in a secure room on an optimal diet with only a treadmill/exercise bike for activity.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,816
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    An insane number of my friends are giving up booze altogether. I now try only to drink on Saturday during winter and Friday and Saturday otherwise (1x bottle per night). And the very, very occasional (because I feel worse on T+1) strong gin on those nights.

    And although I bloody love drinking a decent rouge of an evening, nevertheless even one bottle gives me a fuzzy head the next day I don't like. I really like the feeling of clarity and sharpness, today for example, when I haven't drunk anything for a few days.

    Given the PB demographic of mainly old white blokes I am genuinely surprised that people here drink 1x bottle/day. That is a lot and each morning must feel a struggle. I don't like that struggle.

    Plus the docs (what do they know) say give it a few alcohol-free days per week and who's to say they aren't right in this instance.

    But I simply don’t get that fuzzy head. I don’t get hangovers (they stopped about 20 years ago). This might be a sign I am about to die of cirrhosis, but it hasn’t happened yet. I have to drink TWO bottles of red (and I rarely go that far) before I start to feel a bit shit next day

    Otherwise, I feel fine when I wake. No struggle at alll
    Truly a gift.

    No wonder you are so carefree about the wine you try out.

    That is 30 cases a year of wine you are drinking.
    Yes, I drink a FUCK of a lot of wine, so I like to vary it, and the exploration is fun. If I was more like you and having one bottle every now and then I would probably retreat to guaranteed quality

    This does not apply in Thailand however. Here I drink 19 Crimes - Red Blend,Shiraz. Malbec, Cab Sauv. It’s perfectly acceptable and…. It does not cost £40 a bottle like every other red wine. Taxes on wine here are insane
    For your 30 cases do you buy it (mixed, presumably) case by case or bottle by bottle. Or is your spare room filled to the ceiling with cases from Octavian? The logistics of buying a case of wine every 10 days or so are surely formidable.
    I buy from supermarkets a lot - you can get really interesting bottles from Waitrose, Tesco, M&S - if you go online

    I also buy mixed boxes (of 6 or 12 or 18) from Vivino

    I get it delivered - when in London - about once a week. It’s not a logistical nightmare! It just turns up at your door
    Sounds good. If for me a bit of a hassle having to spend so much time choosing wine and having it delivered.

    No snark, but having to choose this case or that (assuming you don't just go for their "box of the week") every week, always, and then having it delivered or left on your doorstep, week in week out seems a hassle.

    Edit: I love supermarkets; I really regret Tesco closing their wine dept and Aldi now has virtually nothing online.
    But I really like wine and so I like choosing it. Anticipation is a great part of the pleasure, as Freud said (pre-pleasure - Vofreude = “pre-joy” - like agreeably choosing a holiday)

    i agree about Tesco. They used to have an AMAZING online wine department. Some phenomenal bargains. I still have some Grand Crus I bought from them ten years back. Now they just have nice wine, with the odd gem
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,846

    Sandpit said:

    Sean_F said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    Alternative view:

    Sturgeon's GRR Bill. Former Supreme Court judge Lord Hope's devastating assessment of SG's legal challenge chance of success? [VIDEO]

    https://twitter.com/markthehibby/status/1615496497147035648

    The test apparently is not whether Jack is “right” but whether his concerns are “reasonable”. So ScotGov has to prove they are unreasonable. Given all the advice they were given, but ignored, about interaction with the Equality Act before they passed the bill that may not be a hill they wish to die on.

    Timely reminder. Now 18 months since Supreme Court ruled UN Convention on Rights of Child (Incorporation) (Scotland) Bill was unlawful because exceeded devolved powers. FM said it left her unable to fully protect children’s rights She is still to bring back an amended bill. 1/2

    The Q of which government is making a “full frontal assault” on devolution over the GRR bill will similarly be resolved in court with onus potentially placed on SG to bring back an amended bill which satisfies GRA reform and legal competence. 2/2


    https://twitter.com/holyroodmandy/status/1615116932516028420


    The S35 order is gift week for the SNP. It doesn't matter about the GRR bill, its now an assault on Westminster Tories on Holyrood to impose a Tory veto on anything they do. That stalwart of Scottish independence Lord Falconer tears the Tory argument apart in a detailed thread: https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    What it means for Scotland isn't good.
    This will be the third time the SNP have been told
    they were exceeding their powers - the first two in the courts. Did either of the earlier two see a surge in support for independence? The first
    rebuff was over children’s rights, which one might think a more sympathetic case than the current one.
    Alistair Jack’s statement seemed pretty cogent to me.
    A former Lord Chancellor has posted a long twitter thread detailing why he believes the opposite to be true. Its a political football, and not helped by that tool DRoss standing up in the Commons saying it was right the S35 be applied because he lost a debate in Holyrood.
    The most hilarious commentary is from the self deceiving numpties claiming this has all been 'engineered' by the Nats. An actual Scotch expert:



    Yes, it’s totally preposterous that the Scottish government are trying to engineer a row, about something over which they were repeatedly warned over the past few months would overreach their devolved powers.

    Edit: Nats all co-ordinating “since 2016” and “six years”, as if this wasn’t something they passed only a fortnight ago.
    I see your insights from a great distance are even more knowledgeable about Scottish politics than they are about English.
    I do have to concede that people who bleated incessantly about the tyranny of the EU setting common standards for vacuum cleaners and lied about the EU banning the UJ on British farm produce are experts in what is an engineered row.
    I see that you’re not actually engaging with my argument, in the same way that much of the Scottish government response has been trying to avoid the question of whether they passed legislation that’s specifically outside their competence.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576
    Another institution stepping away from Stonewall:

    Good to hear that LSE has ended its formal partnership with Stonewall. Paying a lobby group which advocates for "no debate" to train university staff, and to advise on (and assess) university policy, is incompatible with academic freedom. Well done, everyone involved.

    https://twitter.com/EdinUniAFAF/status/1615476375410053120
  • Options
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    For those who think our 14 drinks a week guidance is prissy:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64311705

    "If you must drink at all, two drinks maximum each week is deemed low-risk by the government-backed guidance."

    I drink, on average, a bottle of red wine every day and a smattering of gin and tonics. Sometimes more, rarely less. The odd dry day here and there

    And I have had a a fucking HOOT for forty adult years
    No doubt you're exaggerating like "hellraisers" always do. If a "hellraiser" says he's on a bottle of vodka a day the truth will be about a third of that.

    But on the offchance you're not, I'd ease off a bit.
    A bottle a day is pretty standard, because if God wasn't OK with it why did he make bottles that size? I would be genuinely happy if Brexit had led to wine coming in pints, because half bottles are too small to bother with.
    Too much for one not enough for two is I believe the official categorisation according to Boris Winston.

    Albeit he was talking about champagne presumably as a sharpener before his proper drinking began.
    His sharpener was actually a tumbler of scotch in his bathroom in the morning. He called it his “mouthwash”. Or so the anecdote has it

    It is remarkable to think that our greatest prime minister got the nation through its greatest crisis, and achieved perhaps its greatest triumph, while being completely shitfaced 85% of the waking day
    The point about Churchill's mouthwash is that it was so dilute, presumably from his days in India when the water could not be trusted. Champagne by the pint and brandy came later in the day.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,590
    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,398

    My New Year’s Resolution is to double my weekly alcohol intake.

    Is the one resolution I have never broken.

    Obviously double nothing is nothing.

    I don’t need alcohol to have a good time.

    That target must help you with reaching your five a day for fruit (and veg) consumption then? :wink:
    https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Ethanol-content-of-beverages-and-fruits_tbl1_309725826
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    Just had the best part of three months in hospital, so no alcohol. Come home to at least a glass of wine every night, which, apart from colouring my urine bag, seems to have had little effect.

    I noticed that my mother (who at 92 I believe has some years on you) has quietly switched from a daily glass of wine to a daily glass of port. And it seems to have done her no harm and a significant amount of good in terms of her daily life, although we don't have the counterfactual had she been teetotal.
    Was the change due to deteriorating tastebuds?
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,065
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    An insane number of my friends are giving up booze altogether. I now try only to drink on Saturday during winter and Friday and Saturday otherwise (1x bottle per night). And the very, very occasional (because I feel worse on T+1) strong gin on those nights.

    And although I bloody love drinking a decent rouge of an evening, nevertheless even one bottle gives me a fuzzy head the next day I don't like. I really like the feeling of clarity and sharpness, today for example, when I haven't drunk anything for a few days.

    Given the PB demographic of mainly old white blokes I am genuinely surprised that people here drink 1x bottle/day. That is a lot and each morning must feel a struggle. I don't like that struggle.

    Plus the docs (what do they know) say give it a few alcohol-free days per week and who's to say they aren't right in this instance.

    But I simply don’t get that fuzzy head. I don’t get hangovers (they stopped about 20 years ago). This might be a sign I am about to die of cirrhosis, but it hasn’t happened yet. I have to drink TWO bottles of red (and I rarely go that far) before I start to feel a bit shit next day

    Otherwise, I feel fine when I wake. No struggle at alll
    Truly a gift.

    No wonder you are so carefree about the wine you try out.

    That is 30 cases a year of wine you are drinking.
    Yes, I drink a FUCK of a lot of wine, so I like to vary it, and the exploration is fun. If I was more like you and having one bottle every now and then I would probably retreat to guaranteed quality

    This does not apply in Thailand however. Here I drink 19 Crimes - Red Blend,Shiraz. Malbec, Cab Sauv. It’s perfectly acceptable and…. It does not cost £40 a bottle like every other red wine. Taxes on wine here are insane
    How sad that you need alcohol - you'll feel so much better if you quit
    Er, with all due respect, how the fuck do you know? We’ve never met

    I ENJOY drinking. Indeed I love it. I love the buzz of that first cracking gin and tonic. I love the discovery of a new red from some mad place. I love the mouthfeel of an excellent margarita, the salt on the lips, crunchy, and intoxicating. MMMMMM. I love a picnic in sunny English countryside knowing there’s a chilled bottle of Nyetimber or Meursault waiting to go with the cheese and strawberries and jamon iberica de bellota

    It also makes meals much more enjoyable, it makes socialising smoother and happier, it gives the day a delicious structure. You work hard, you go the gym, you meet and you greet, and then there is your reward. BOOZE

    God would not have made wine so enjoyable if he did not want us to get rat faced
    Alcohol is a good social lubricant. I drink if I go out but almost never drink at home, I just don't see the point. I didn't drink any alcohol on our recent two week holiday because we were with my in-laws who don't drink, and it had no detrimental effect on my enjoyment of the holiday whatsoever.
    As a parent one difficulty I have is knowing precisely how to navigate the situation around alcohol as our kids approach 18. Legally the situation is basically nothing until your 18th birthday, then go ahead and knock yourself out. It seems to me that it's better to give them some leeway for underage drinking in their late teens so that it's a more gradual transition under a degree of parental supervision and they know how to handle it when they leave home - de facto this is what my parents did and I was a much more sensible drinker at Uni than the kids who hadn't been allowed to drink. But I've run into problems with that approach, eg my 16yo daughter had a party, we bought some 4% beer and cider, but some of the kids turned up with bottles of vodka and some of them ended up dangerously drunk (not my daughter, she was fine). I don't think it's reasonable (or even right) to expect them not to drink at all but it's a bit of a minefield both legally and morally.
  • Options

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    An insane number of my friends are giving up booze altogether. I now try only to drink on Saturday during winter and Friday and Saturday otherwise (1x bottle per night). And the very, very occasional (because I feel worse on T+1) strong gin on those nights.

    And although I bloody love drinking a decent rouge of an evening, nevertheless even one bottle gives me a fuzzy head the next day I don't like. I really like the feeling of clarity and sharpness, today for example, when I haven't drunk anything for a few days.

    Given the PB demographic of mainly old white blokes I am genuinely surprised that people here drink 1x bottle/day. That is a lot and each morning must feel a struggle. I don't like that struggle.

    Plus the docs (what do they know) say give it a few alcohol-free days per week and who's to say they aren't right in this instance.

    But I simply don’t get that fuzzy head. I don’t get hangovers (they stopped about 20 years ago). This might be a sign I am about to die of cirrhosis, but it hasn’t happened yet. I have to drink TWO bottles of red (and I rarely go that far) before I start to feel a bit shit next day

    Otherwise, I feel fine when I wake. No struggle at alll
    Truly a gift.

    No wonder you are so carefree about the wine you try out.

    That is 30 cases a year of wine you are drinking.
    Yes, I drink a FUCK of a lot of wine, so I like to vary it, and the exploration is fun. If I was more like you and having one bottle every now and then I would probably retreat to guaranteed quality

    This does not apply in Thailand however. Here I drink 19 Crimes - Red Blend,Shiraz. Malbec, Cab Sauv. It’s perfectly acceptable and…. It does not cost £40 a bottle like every other red wine. Taxes on wine here are insane
    How sad that you need alcohol - you'll feel so much better if you quit
    Er, with all due respect, how the fuck do you know? We’ve never met

    I ENJOY drinking. Indeed I love it. I love the buzz of that first cracking gin and tonic. I love the discovery of a new red from some mad place. I love the mouthfeel of an excellent margarita, the salt on the lips, crunchy, and intoxicating. MMMMMM. I love a picnic in sunny English countryside knowing there’s a chilled bottle of Nyetimber or Meursault waiting to go with the cheese and strawberries and jamon iberica de bellota

    It also makes meals much more enjoyable, it makes socialising smoother and happier, it gives the day a delicious structure. You work hard, you go the gym, you meet and you greet, and then there is your reward. BOOZE

    God would not have made wine so enjoyable if he did not want us to get rat faced
    Alcohol is a good social lubricant. I drink if I go out but almost never drink at home, I just don't see the point. I didn't drink any alcohol on our recent two week holiday because we were with my in-laws who don't drink, and it had no detrimental effect on my enjoyment of the holiday whatsoever.
    As a parent one difficulty I have is knowing precisely how to navigate the situation around alcohol as our kids approach 18. Legally the situation is basically nothing until your 18th birthday, then go ahead and knock yourself out. It seems to me that it's better to give them some leeway for underage drinking in their late teens so that it's a more gradual transition under a degree of parental supervision and they know how to handle it when they leave home - de facto this is what my parents did and I was a much more sensible drinker at Uni than the kids who hadn't been allowed to drink. But I've run into problems with that approach, eg my 16yo daughter had a party, we bought some 4% beer and cider, but some of the kids turned up with bottles of vodka and some of them ended up dangerously drunk (not my daughter, she was fine). I don't think it's reasonable (or even right) to expect them not to drink at all but it's a bit of a minefield both legally and morally.
    Are teenagers no longer allowed alcohol with meals? That would be the obvious preparation.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    edited January 2023
    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,065

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    An insane number of my friends are giving up booze altogether. I now try only to drink on Saturday during winter and Friday and Saturday otherwise (1x bottle per night). And the very, very occasional (because I feel worse on T+1) strong gin on those nights.

    And although I bloody love drinking a decent rouge of an evening, nevertheless even one bottle gives me a fuzzy head the next day I don't like. I really like the feeling of clarity and sharpness, today for example, when I haven't drunk anything for a few days.

    Given the PB demographic of mainly old white blokes I am genuinely surprised that people here drink 1x bottle/day. That is a lot and each morning must feel a struggle. I don't like that struggle.

    Plus the docs (what do they know) say give it a few alcohol-free days per week and who's to say they aren't right in this instance.

    But I simply don’t get that fuzzy head. I don’t get hangovers (they stopped about 20 years ago). This might be a sign I am about to die of cirrhosis, but it hasn’t happened yet. I have to drink TWO bottles of red (and I rarely go that far) before I start to feel a bit shit next day

    Otherwise, I feel fine when I wake. No struggle at alll
    Truly a gift.

    No wonder you are so carefree about the wine you try out.

    That is 30 cases a year of wine you are drinking.
    Yes, I drink a FUCK of a lot of wine, so I like to vary it, and the exploration is fun. If I was more like you and having one bottle every now and then I would probably retreat to guaranteed quality

    This does not apply in Thailand however. Here I drink 19 Crimes - Red Blend,Shiraz. Malbec, Cab Sauv. It’s perfectly acceptable and…. It does not cost £40 a bottle like every other red wine. Taxes on wine here are insane
    How sad that you need alcohol - you'll feel so much better if you quit
    Er, with all due respect, how the fuck do you know? We’ve never met

    I ENJOY drinking. Indeed I love it. I love the buzz of that first cracking gin and tonic. I love the discovery of a new red from some mad place. I love the mouthfeel of an excellent margarita, the salt on the lips, crunchy, and intoxicating. MMMMMM. I love a picnic in sunny English countryside knowing there’s a chilled bottle of Nyetimber or Meursault waiting to go with the cheese and strawberries and jamon iberica de bellota

    It also makes meals much more enjoyable, it makes socialising smoother and happier, it gives the day a delicious structure. You work hard, you go the gym, you meet and you greet, and then there is your reward. BOOZE

    God would not have made wine so enjoyable if he did not want us to get rat faced
    Alcohol is a good social lubricant. I drink if I go out but almost never drink at home, I just don't see the point. I didn't drink any alcohol on our recent two week holiday because we were with my in-laws who don't drink, and it had no detrimental effect on my enjoyment of the holiday whatsoever.
    As a parent one difficulty I have is knowing precisely how to navigate the situation around alcohol as our kids approach 18. Legally the situation is basically nothing until your 18th birthday, then go ahead and knock yourself out. It seems to me that it's better to give them some leeway for underage drinking in their late teens so that it's a more gradual transition under a degree of parental supervision and they know how to handle it when they leave home - de facto this is what my parents did and I was a much more sensible drinker at Uni than the kids who hadn't been allowed to drink. But I've run into problems with that approach, eg my 16yo daughter had a party, we bought some 4% beer and cider, but some of the kids turned up with bottles of vodka and some of them ended up dangerously drunk (not my daughter, she was fine). I don't think it's reasonable (or even right) to expect them not to drink at all but it's a bit of a minefield both legally and morally.
    Are teenagers no longer allowed alcohol with meals? That would be the obvious preparation.
    Up to a point, although when they turn 18 and leave home they won't typically be going to a lot of dinner parties.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,816
    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Plus look at our society. Try to buy a Birthday/Anniversary/Congratulations on your New Job/Happy 10th Birthday card and 85% of them use some droll alcohol/gin reference.

    We get plastered, blotto, sloshed, etc. All vaguely heroic-sounding states.

    Go to LHR or any airport at 8.30am and the bars are chock full with people drinking.

    Then go to A&E on a Friday or Saturday night and see what this causes.

    As I, ahem, may have mentioned I used to do doorwork in Central London on Fridays and Saturdays and although Friday was marginally better (people simply not having had enough time to get fuelled up), Saturdays were often carnage.

    The UK does have a fantastically ugly relationship with alcohol. Only Russia comes close in my experience.

    Since my early 20s I've only ever had one tot of pusser's on Taranto Night and that's it for the year but I jacked that in about 5 years when we ran out and I couldn't be arsed to get another bottle. What I've noticed is that other people can be quite fantastically discommoded if you refuse to drink,
    Then you haven’t experienced much

    I'm talking about the social pressure from others to drink. I've only really experienced that in the UK and Russia. There are plenty of other places where people cane the hooch but they don't seem to care as much if other people don't.
    You will also find that social pressure in parts of China, Australia, Mongolia, Japan, and plenty other places

    Toasting with booze is a big thing throughout much of Asia, and it is deemed quite odd not to join in

    i agree that Russia is probably the most demented
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576
    Section 35 (emphasis added)

    35 Power to intervene in certain cases.U.K.
    This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
    (1)If a Bill contains provisions—
    (a)which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or
    (b)which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters,
    he may make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent.


    http://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2023/01/some-thoughts-on-today.html?m=1

    I wonder what legal advice Sturgeon has received (if any, she announced she was going to court before the grounds were published) and how the Lord Advocate will argue it.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,483

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    An insane number of my friends are giving up booze altogether. I now try only to drink on Saturday during winter and Friday and Saturday otherwise (1x bottle per night). And the very, very occasional (because I feel worse on T+1) strong gin on those nights.

    And although I bloody love drinking a decent rouge of an evening, nevertheless even one bottle gives me a fuzzy head the next day I don't like. I really like the feeling of clarity and sharpness, today for example, when I haven't drunk anything for a few days.

    Given the PB demographic of mainly old white blokes I am genuinely surprised that people here drink 1x bottle/day. That is a lot and each morning must feel a struggle. I don't like that struggle.

    Plus the docs (what do they know) say give it a few alcohol-free days per week and who's to say they aren't right in this instance.

    But I simply don’t get that fuzzy head. I don’t get hangovers (they stopped about 20 years ago). This might be a sign I am about to die of cirrhosis, but it hasn’t happened yet. I have to drink TWO bottles of red (and I rarely go that far) before I start to feel a bit shit next day

    Otherwise, I feel fine when I wake. No struggle at alll
    Truly a gift.

    No wonder you are so carefree about the wine you try out.

    That is 30 cases a year of wine you are drinking.
    Yes, I drink a FUCK of a lot of wine, so I like to vary it, and the exploration is fun. If I was more like you and having one bottle every now and then I would probably retreat to guaranteed quality

    This does not apply in Thailand however. Here I drink 19 Crimes - Red Blend,Shiraz. Malbec, Cab Sauv. It’s perfectly acceptable and…. It does not cost £40 a bottle like every other red wine. Taxes on wine here are insane
    How sad that you need alcohol - you'll feel so much better if you quit
    Er, with all due respect, how the fuck do you know? We’ve never met

    I ENJOY drinking. Indeed I love it. I love the buzz of that first cracking gin and tonic. I love the discovery of a new red from some mad place. I love the mouthfeel of an excellent margarita, the salt on the lips, crunchy, and intoxicating. MMMMMM. I love a picnic in sunny English countryside knowing there’s a chilled bottle of Nyetimber or Meursault waiting to go with the cheese and strawberries and jamon iberica de bellota

    It also makes meals much more enjoyable, it makes socialising smoother and happier, it gives the day a delicious structure. You work hard, you go the gym, you meet and you greet, and then there is your reward. BOOZE

    God would not have made wine so enjoyable if he did not want us to get rat faced
    Alcohol is a good social lubricant. I drink if I go out but almost never drink at home, I just don't see the point. I didn't drink any alcohol on our recent two week holiday because we were with my in-laws who don't drink, and it had no detrimental effect on my enjoyment of the holiday whatsoever.
    As a parent one difficulty I have is knowing precisely how to navigate the situation around alcohol as our kids approach 18. Legally the situation is basically nothing until your 18th birthday, then go ahead and knock yourself out. It seems to me that it's better to give them some leeway for underage drinking in their late teens so that it's a more gradual transition under a degree of parental supervision and they know how to handle it when they leave home - de facto this is what my parents did and I was a much more sensible drinker at Uni than the kids who hadn't been allowed to drink. But I've run into problems with that approach, eg my 16yo daughter had a party, we bought some 4% beer and cider, but some of the kids turned up with bottles of vodka and some of them ended up dangerously drunk (not my daughter, she was fine). I don't think it's reasonable (or even right) to expect them not to drink at all but it's a bit of a minefield both legally and morally.
    Are teenagers no longer allowed alcohol with meals? That would be the obvious preparation.
    Up to a point, although when they turn 18 and leave home they won't typically be going to a lot of dinner parties.
    My son seems to be establishing himself as teetotal, which is a bit of a shame given his father is now a vigneron but certainly means there's less of a fear around teenage parties.

    From the point of view of my vineyard the trend I really need is for people to drink less often, but mainly at home or with meals in restaurants, and to spend more per bottle. Treat themselves, rather than bingeing on prosecco and pinot grigio or sticking to beer. The less but better trend seems to have been happening with Millennials. The younger generation though seem to be skipping the booze altogether, which is worrying for long term viability.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,372
    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Plus look at our society. Try to buy a Birthday/Anniversary/Congratulations on your New Job/Happy 10th Birthday card and 85% of them use some droll alcohol/gin reference.

    We get plastered, blotto, sloshed, etc. All vaguely heroic-sounding states.

    Go to LHR or any airport at 8.30am and the bars are chock full with people drinking.

    Then go to A&E on a Friday or Saturday night and see what this causes.

    As I, ahem, may have mentioned I used to do doorwork in Central London on Fridays and Saturdays and although Friday was marginally better (people simply not having had enough time to get fuelled up), Saturdays were often carnage.

    The UK does have a fantastically ugly relationship with alcohol. Only Russia comes close in my experience.

    Since my early 20s I've only ever had one tot of pusser's on Taranto Night and that's it for the year but I jacked that in about 5 years when we ran out and I couldn't be arsed to get another bottle. What I've noticed is that other people can be quite fantastically discommoded if you refuse to drink,
    Then you haven’t experienced much

    I'm talking about the social pressure from others to drink. I've only really experienced that in the UK and Russia. There are plenty of other places where people cane the hooch but they don't seem to care as much if other people don't.
    You will also find that social pressure in parts of China, Australia, Mongolia, Japan, and plenty other places

    Toasting with booze is a big thing throughout much of Asia, and it is deemed quite odd not to join in...
    South Korea, too.
    Similar to Japan, the 회식 "dining together" work event is traditionally accompanied by semi mandatory downing of shots - but per capita booze consumption seems to have declined quite significantly in the last decade.
    Young Koreans drink a lot less than their parents did.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,398
    On alcohol, this person has died after drinking a glass of wine every day. She did make it to 118, though.
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-64314673
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,816
    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    An insane number of my friends are giving up booze altogether. I now try only to drink on Saturday during winter and Friday and Saturday otherwise (1x bottle per night). And the very, very occasional (because I feel worse on T+1) strong gin on those nights.

    And although I bloody love drinking a decent rouge of an evening, nevertheless even one bottle gives me a fuzzy head the next day I don't like. I really like the feeling of clarity and sharpness, today for example, when I haven't drunk anything for a few days.

    Given the PB demographic of mainly old white blokes I am genuinely surprised that people here drink 1x bottle/day. That is a lot and each morning must feel a struggle. I don't like that struggle.

    Plus the docs (what do they know) say give it a few alcohol-free days per week and who's to say they aren't right in this instance.

    But I simply don’t get that fuzzy head. I don’t get hangovers (they stopped about 20 years ago). This might be a sign I am about to die of cirrhosis, but it hasn’t happened yet. I have to drink TWO bottles of red (and I rarely go that far) before I start to feel a bit shit next day

    Otherwise, I feel fine when I wake. No struggle at alll
    Truly a gift.

    No wonder you are so carefree about the wine you try out.

    That is 30 cases a year of wine you are drinking.
    Yes, I drink a FUCK of a lot of wine, so I like to vary it, and the exploration is fun. If I was more like you and having one bottle every now and then I would probably retreat to guaranteed quality

    This does not apply in Thailand however. Here I drink 19 Crimes - Red Blend,Shiraz. Malbec, Cab Sauv. It’s perfectly acceptable and…. It does not cost £40 a bottle like every other red wine. Taxes on wine here are insane
    How sad that you need alcohol - you'll feel so much better if you quit
    Er, with all due respect, how the fuck do you know? We’ve never met

    I ENJOY drinking. Indeed I love it. I love the buzz of that first cracking gin and tonic. I love the discovery of a new red from some mad place. I love the mouthfeel of an excellent margarita, the salt on the lips, crunchy, and intoxicating. MMMMMM. I love a picnic in sunny English countryside knowing there’s a chilled bottle of Nyetimber or Meursault waiting to go with the cheese and strawberries and jamon iberica de bellota

    It also makes meals much more enjoyable, it makes socialising smoother and happier, it gives the day a delicious structure. You work hard, you go the gym, you meet and you greet, and then there is your reward. BOOZE

    God would not have made wine so enjoyable if he did not want us to get rat faced
    Alcohol is a good social lubricant. I drink if I go out but almost never drink at home, I just don't see the point. I didn't drink any alcohol on our recent two week holiday because we were with my in-laws who don't drink, and it had no detrimental effect on my enjoyment of the holiday whatsoever.
    As a parent one difficulty I have is knowing precisely how to navigate the situation around alcohol as our kids approach 18. Legally the situation is basically nothing until your 18th birthday, then go ahead and knock yourself out. It seems to me that it's better to give them some leeway for underage drinking in their late teens so that it's a more gradual transition under a degree of parental supervision and they know how to handle it when they leave home - de facto this is what my parents did and I was a much more sensible drinker at Uni than the kids who hadn't been allowed to drink. But I've run into problems with that approach, eg my 16yo daughter had a party, we bought some 4% beer and cider, but some of the kids turned up with bottles of vodka and some of them ended up dangerously drunk (not my daughter, she was fine). I don't think it's reasonable (or even right) to expect them not to drink at all but it's a bit of a minefield both legally and morally.
    Are teenagers no longer allowed alcohol with meals? That would be the obvious preparation.
    Up to a point, although when they turn 18 and leave home they won't typically be going to a lot of dinner parties.
    My son seems to be establishing himself as teetotal, which is a bit of a shame given his father is now a vigneron but certainly means there's less of a fear around teenage parties.

    From the point of view of my vineyard the trend I really need is for people to drink less often, but mainly at home or with meals in restaurants, and to spend more per bottle. Treat themselves, rather than bingeing on prosecco and pinot grigio or sticking to beer. The less but better trend seems to have been happening with Millennials. The younger generation though seem to be skipping the booze altogether, which is worrying for long term viability.
    The pendulum will swing. This generation rising is puritan, judgmental and sober. Woke. Earnest and a bit humourless. if you are mean they are boring gits, if you approve they are upstanding citizens

    THEIR kids will probably be the most hellraising foul mouthed taboo-busting bunch of drunken druggies you can imagine. Like the 60s kids after the straightlaced 50s
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,969
    Good morning, everyone.

    I hardly ever drink, so this wouldn't affect me. But a limit or guidance of two drinks a week is bloody ridiculous. If people want to be personally puritanical that's fine, imposing it on others is obnoxious.
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,129

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    An insane number of my friends are giving up booze altogether. I now try only to drink on Saturday during winter and Friday and Saturday otherwise (1x bottle per night). And the very, very occasional (because I feel worse on T+1) strong gin on those nights.

    And although I bloody love drinking a decent rouge of an evening, nevertheless even one bottle gives me a fuzzy head the next day I don't like. I really like the feeling of clarity and sharpness, today for example, when I haven't drunk anything for a few days.

    Given the PB demographic of mainly old white blokes I am genuinely surprised that people here drink 1x bottle/day. That is a lot and each morning must feel a struggle. I don't like that struggle.

    Plus the docs (what do they know) say give it a few alcohol-free days per week and who's to say they aren't right in this instance.

    But I simply don’t get that fuzzy head. I don’t get hangovers (they stopped about 20 years ago). This might be a sign I am about to die of cirrhosis, but it hasn’t happened yet. I have to drink TWO bottles of red (and I rarely go that far) before I start to feel a bit shit next day

    Otherwise, I feel fine when I wake. No struggle at alll
    Truly a gift.

    No wonder you are so carefree about the wine you try out.

    That is 30 cases a year of wine you are drinking.
    Yes, I drink a FUCK of a lot of wine, so I like to vary it, and the exploration is fun. If I was more like you and having one bottle every now and then I would probably retreat to guaranteed quality

    This does not apply in Thailand however. Here I drink 19 Crimes - Red Blend,Shiraz. Malbec, Cab Sauv. It’s perfectly acceptable and…. It does not cost £40 a bottle like every other red wine. Taxes on wine here are insane
    How sad that you need alcohol - you'll feel so much better if you quit
    Er, with all due respect, how the fuck do you know? We’ve never met

    I ENJOY drinking. Indeed I love it. I love the buzz of that first cracking gin and tonic. I love the discovery of a new red from some mad place. I love the mouthfeel of an excellent margarita, the salt on the lips, crunchy, and intoxicating. MMMMMM. I love a picnic in sunny English countryside knowing there’s a chilled bottle of Nyetimber or Meursault waiting to go with the cheese and strawberries and jamon iberica de bellota

    It also makes meals much more enjoyable, it makes socialising smoother and happier, it gives the day a delicious structure. You work hard, you go the gym, you meet and you greet, and then there is your reward. BOOZE

    God would not have made wine so enjoyable if he did not want us to get rat faced
    Alcohol is a good social lubricant. I drink if I go out but almost never drink at home, I just don't see the point. I didn't drink any alcohol on our recent two week holiday because we were with my in-laws who don't drink, and it had no detrimental effect on my enjoyment of the holiday whatsoever.
    As a parent one difficulty I have is knowing precisely how to navigate the situation around alcohol as our kids approach 18. Legally the situation is basically nothing until your 18th birthday, then go ahead and knock yourself out. It seems to me that it's better to give them some leeway for underage drinking in their late teens so that it's a more gradual transition under a degree of parental supervision and they know how to handle it when they leave home - de facto this is what my parents did and I was a much more sensible drinker at Uni than the kids who hadn't been allowed to drink. But I've run into problems with that approach, eg my 16yo daughter had a party, we bought some 4% beer and cider, but some of the kids turned up with bottles of vodka and some of them ended up dangerously drunk (not my daughter, she was fine). I don't think it's reasonable (or even right) to expect them not to drink at all but it's a bit of a minefield both legally and morally.
    My parents tried this - wine or cider with dinner when I was 15 or so - but I'm afraid it didn't work with me. Soon as I got to Uni in London I went berserk. But it's good to think about what's best so don't let that put you off. Barely 18, beamed from yorkshire mining town to South Ken, full grant, not very interested in degree subject, there's only one way that's going. But no biggie, here I still am, 62, typing away.
  • Options
    OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 15,065
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    An insane number of my friends are giving up booze altogether. I now try only to drink on Saturday during winter and Friday and Saturday otherwise (1x bottle per night). And the very, very occasional (because I feel worse on T+1) strong gin on those nights.

    And although I bloody love drinking a decent rouge of an evening, nevertheless even one bottle gives me a fuzzy head the next day I don't like. I really like the feeling of clarity and sharpness, today for example, when I haven't drunk anything for a few days.

    Given the PB demographic of mainly old white blokes I am genuinely surprised that people here drink 1x bottle/day. That is a lot and each morning must feel a struggle. I don't like that struggle.

    Plus the docs (what do they know) say give it a few alcohol-free days per week and who's to say they aren't right in this instance.

    But I simply don’t get that fuzzy head. I don’t get hangovers (they stopped about 20 years ago). This might be a sign I am about to die of cirrhosis, but it hasn’t happened yet. I have to drink TWO bottles of red (and I rarely go that far) before I start to feel a bit shit next day

    Otherwise, I feel fine when I wake. No struggle at alll
    Truly a gift.

    No wonder you are so carefree about the wine you try out.

    That is 30 cases a year of wine you are drinking.
    Yes, I drink a FUCK of a lot of wine, so I like to vary it, and the exploration is fun. If I was more like you and having one bottle every now and then I would probably retreat to guaranteed quality

    This does not apply in Thailand however. Here I drink 19 Crimes - Red Blend,Shiraz. Malbec, Cab Sauv. It’s perfectly acceptable and…. It does not cost £40 a bottle like every other red wine. Taxes on wine here are insane
    How sad that you need alcohol - you'll feel so much better if you quit
    Er, with all due respect, how the fuck do you know? We’ve never met

    I ENJOY drinking. Indeed I love it. I love the buzz of that first cracking gin and tonic. I love the discovery of a new red from some mad place. I love the mouthfeel of an excellent margarita, the salt on the lips, crunchy, and intoxicating. MMMMMM. I love a picnic in sunny English countryside knowing there’s a chilled bottle of Nyetimber or Meursault waiting to go with the cheese and strawberries and jamon iberica de bellota

    It also makes meals much more enjoyable, it makes socialising smoother and happier, it gives the day a delicious structure. You work hard, you go the gym, you meet and you greet, and then there is your reward. BOOZE

    God would not have made wine so enjoyable if he did not want us to get rat faced
    Alcohol is a good social lubricant. I drink if I go out but almost never drink at home, I just don't see the point. I didn't drink any alcohol on our recent two week holiday because we were with my in-laws who don't drink, and it had no detrimental effect on my enjoyment of the holiday whatsoever.
    As a parent one difficulty I have is knowing precisely how to navigate the situation around alcohol as our kids approach 18. Legally the situation is basically nothing until your 18th birthday, then go ahead and knock yourself out. It seems to me that it's better to give them some leeway for underage drinking in their late teens so that it's a more gradual transition under a degree of parental supervision and they know how to handle it when they leave home - de facto this is what my parents did and I was a much more sensible drinker at Uni than the kids who hadn't been allowed to drink. But I've run into problems with that approach, eg my 16yo daughter had a party, we bought some 4% beer and cider, but some of the kids turned up with bottles of vodka and some of them ended up dangerously drunk (not my daughter, she was fine). I don't think it's reasonable (or even right) to expect them not to drink at all but it's a bit of a minefield both legally and morally.
    Are teenagers no longer allowed alcohol with meals? That would be the obvious preparation.
    Up to a point, although when they turn 18 and leave home they won't typically be going to a lot of dinner parties.
    My son seems to be establishing himself as teetotal, which is a bit of a shame given his father is now a vigneron but certainly means there's less of a fear around teenage parties.

    From the point of view of my vineyard the trend I really need is for people to drink less often, but mainly at home or with meals in restaurants, and to spend more per bottle. Treat themselves, rather than bingeing on prosecco and pinot grigio or sticking to beer. The less but better trend seems to have been happening with Millennials. The younger generation though seem to be skipping the booze altogether, which is worrying for long term viability.
    The pendulum will swing. This generation rising is puritan, judgmental and sober. Woke. Earnest and a bit humourless. if you are mean they are boring gits, if you approve they are upstanding citizens

    THEIR kids will probably be the most hellraising foul mouthed taboo-busting bunch of drunken druggies you can imagine. Like the 60s kids after the straightlaced 50s
    Based on my daughter's party I would say your characterisation of the nation's youth is somewhat wide of the mark...
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,816
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Plus look at our society. Try to buy a Birthday/Anniversary/Congratulations on your New Job/Happy 10th Birthday card and 85% of them use some droll alcohol/gin reference.

    We get plastered, blotto, sloshed, etc. All vaguely heroic-sounding states.

    Go to LHR or any airport at 8.30am and the bars are chock full with people drinking.

    Then go to A&E on a Friday or Saturday night and see what this causes.

    As I, ahem, may have mentioned I used to do doorwork in Central London on Fridays and Saturdays and although Friday was marginally better (people simply not having had enough time to get fuelled up), Saturdays were often carnage.

    The UK does have a fantastically ugly relationship with alcohol. Only Russia comes close in my experience.

    Since my early 20s I've only ever had one tot of pusser's on Taranto Night and that's it for the year but I jacked that in about 5 years when we ran out and I couldn't be arsed to get another bottle. What I've noticed is that other people can be quite fantastically discommoded if you refuse to drink,
    Then you haven’t experienced much

    I'm talking about the social pressure from others to drink. I've only really experienced that in the UK and Russia. There are plenty of other places where people cane the hooch but they don't seem to care as much if other people don't.
    You will also find that social pressure in parts of China, Australia, Mongolia, Japan, and plenty other places

    Toasting with booze is a big thing throughout much of Asia, and it is deemed quite odd not to join in...
    South Korea, too.
    Similar to Japan, the 회식 "dining together" work event is traditionally accompanied by semi mandatory downing of shots - but per capita booze consumption seems to have declined quite significantly in the last decade.
    Young Koreans drink a lot less than their parents did.
    Yes, the decline in youthful boozing seems to be happening across the advanced world. Smart phones and social media must be a major cause
  • Options

    Good morning, everyone.

    I hardly ever drink, so this wouldn't affect me. But a limit or guidance of two drinks a week is bloody ridiculous. If people want to be personally puritanical that's fine, imposing it on others is obnoxious.

    I am the same in regard to alcohol but absolutely agree attempts to impose weekly limits is absurd
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,099
    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    An insane number of my friends are giving up booze altogether. I now try only to drink on Saturday during winter and Friday and Saturday otherwise (1x bottle per night). And the very, very occasional (because I feel worse on T+1) strong gin on those nights.

    And although I bloody love drinking a decent rouge of an evening, nevertheless even one bottle gives me a fuzzy head the next day I don't like. I really like the feeling of clarity and sharpness, today for example, when I haven't drunk anything for a few days.

    Given the PB demographic of mainly old white blokes I am genuinely surprised that people here drink 1x bottle/day. That is a lot and each morning must feel a struggle. I don't like that struggle.

    Plus the docs (what do they know) say give it a few alcohol-free days per week and who's to say they aren't right in this instance.

    But I simply don’t get that fuzzy head. I don’t get hangovers (they stopped about 20 years ago). This might be a sign I am about to die of cirrhosis, but it hasn’t happened yet. I have to drink TWO bottles of red (and I rarely go that far) before I start to feel a bit shit next day

    Otherwise, I feel fine when I wake. No struggle at alll
    Truly a gift.

    No wonder you are so carefree about the wine you try out.

    That is 30 cases a year of wine you are drinking.
    Yes, I drink a FUCK of a lot of wine, so I like to vary it, and the exploration is fun. If I was more like you and having one bottle every now and then I would probably retreat to guaranteed quality

    This does not apply in Thailand however. Here I drink 19 Crimes - Red Blend,Shiraz. Malbec, Cab Sauv. It’s perfectly acceptable and…. It does not cost £40 a bottle like every other red wine. Taxes on wine here are insane
    How sad that you need alcohol - you'll feel so much better if you quit
    Er, with all due respect, how the fuck do you know? We’ve never met

    I ENJOY drinking. Indeed I love it. I love the buzz of that first cracking gin and tonic. I love the discovery of a new red from some mad place. I love the mouthfeel of an excellent margarita, the salt on the lips, crunchy, and intoxicating. MMMMMM. I love a picnic in sunny English countryside knowing there’s a chilled bottle of Nyetimber or Meursault waiting to go with the cheese and strawberries and jamon iberica de bellota

    It also makes meals much more enjoyable, it makes socialising smoother and happier, it gives the day a delicious structure. You work hard, you go the gym, you meet and you greet, and then there is your reward. BOOZE

    God would not have made wine so enjoyable if he did not want us to get rat faced
    Alcohol is a good social lubricant. I drink if I go out but almost never drink at home, I just don't see the point. I didn't drink any alcohol on our recent two week holiday because we were with my in-laws who don't drink, and it had no detrimental effect on my enjoyment of the holiday whatsoever.
    As a parent one difficulty I have is knowing precisely how to navigate the situation around alcohol as our kids approach 18. Legally the situation is basically nothing until your 18th birthday, then go ahead and knock yourself out. It seems to me that it's better to give them some leeway for underage drinking in their late teens so that it's a more gradual transition under a degree of parental supervision and they know how to handle it when they leave home - de facto this is what my parents did and I was a much more sensible drinker at Uni than the kids who hadn't been allowed to drink. But I've run into problems with that approach, eg my 16yo daughter had a party, we bought some 4% beer and cider, but some of the kids turned up with bottles of vodka and some of them ended up dangerously drunk (not my daughter, she was fine). I don't think it's reasonable (or even right) to expect them not to drink at all but it's a bit of a minefield both legally and morally.
    Are teenagers no longer allowed alcohol with meals? That would be the obvious preparation.
    Up to a point, although when they turn 18 and leave home they won't typically be going to a lot of dinner parties.
    My son seems to be establishing himself as teetotal, which is a bit of a shame given his father is now a vigneron but certainly means there's less of a fear around teenage parties.

    From the point of view of my vineyard the trend I really need is for people to drink less often, but mainly at home or with meals in restaurants, and to spend more per bottle. Treat themselves, rather than bingeing on prosecco and pinot grigio or sticking to beer. The less but better trend seems to have been happening with Millennials. The younger generation though seem to be skipping the booze altogether, which is worrying for long term viability.
    The pendulum will swing. This generation rising is puritan, judgmental and sober. Woke. Earnest and a bit humourless. if you are mean they are boring gits, if you approve they are upstanding citizens

    THEIR kids will probably be the most hellraising foul mouthed taboo-busting bunch of drunken druggies you can imagine. Like the 60s kids after the straightlaced 50s
    But how far will the pendulum swing before it turns? Will our children torment us by making another attempt to prohibit alcohol to blight our later years?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    edited January 2023

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
    Certainly if Sturgeon keeps taking deeply unpopular positions with most Scots like on her Gender Reform Bill which the UK government sides with Scots on then she will increase support for the Union.

    In time that may well increase even opposition to devolution too from its current levels of about 20 to 25% of Scots wanting to restore the Union as was pre New Labour
  • Options
    kinabalukinabalu Posts: 39,129
    It's just guidance, Morris, I think. Nothing actually happens on that 1st sip of the 3rd beer.
  • Options

    Section 35 (emphasis added)

    35 Power to intervene in certain cases.U.K.
    This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
    (1)If a Bill contains provisions—
    (a)which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or
    (b)which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters,
    he may make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent.


    http://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2023/01/some-thoughts-on-today.html?m=1

    I wonder what legal advice Sturgeon has received (if any, she announced she was going to court before the grounds were published) and how the Lord Advocate will argue it.

    Is this a reserved matter?
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,045
    Something like a quarter of young people are now teetotal. I used to drink as a student but hardly at all since then.
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 39,590

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
    Good morning, BigG, and thank you for saving me the trouble.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
    Certainly if Sturgeon keeps taking deeply unpopular positions with most Scots like on her Gender Reform Bill whicg the UK government sides with Scots on them she will increase support for the Union.

    In time that may well increase even opposition to devolution too from its current levels of about 20 to 25% of Scots wanting to restore the Union as was pre New Labour
    As I said you simply do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to suggest they will surrender devolution for rule by Westminster
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 46,816
    edited January 2023

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    An insane number of my friends are giving up booze altogether. I now try only to drink on Saturday during winter and Friday and Saturday otherwise (1x bottle per night). And the very, very occasional (because I feel worse on T+1) strong gin on those nights.

    And although I bloody love drinking a decent rouge of an evening, nevertheless even one bottle gives me a fuzzy head the next day I don't like. I really like the feeling of clarity and sharpness, today for example, when I haven't drunk anything for a few days.

    Given the PB demographic of mainly old white blokes I am genuinely surprised that people here drink 1x bottle/day. That is a lot and each morning must feel a struggle. I don't like that struggle.

    Plus the docs (what do they know) say give it a few alcohol-free days per week and who's to say they aren't right in this instance.

    But I simply don’t get that fuzzy head. I don’t get hangovers (they stopped about 20 years ago). This might be a sign I am about to die of cirrhosis, but it hasn’t happened yet. I have to drink TWO bottles of red (and I rarely go that far) before I start to feel a bit shit next day

    Otherwise, I feel fine when I wake. No struggle at alll
    Truly a gift.

    No wonder you are so carefree about the wine you try out.

    That is 30 cases a year of wine you are drinking.
    Yes, I drink a FUCK of a lot of wine, so I like to vary it, and the exploration is fun. If I was more like you and having one bottle every now and then I would probably retreat to guaranteed quality

    This does not apply in Thailand however. Here I drink 19 Crimes - Red Blend,Shiraz. Malbec, Cab Sauv. It’s perfectly acceptable and…. It does not cost £40 a bottle like every other red wine. Taxes on wine here are insane
    How sad that you need alcohol - you'll feel so much better if you quit
    Er, with all due respect, how the fuck do you know? We’ve never met

    I ENJOY drinking. Indeed I love it. I love the buzz of that first cracking gin and tonic. I love the discovery of a new red from some mad place. I love the mouthfeel of an excellent margarita, the salt on the lips, crunchy, and intoxicating. MMMMMM. I love a picnic in sunny English countryside knowing there’s a chilled bottle of Nyetimber or Meursault waiting to go with the cheese and strawberries and jamon iberica de bellota

    It also makes meals much more enjoyable, it makes socialising smoother and happier, it gives the day a delicious structure. You work hard, you go the gym, you meet and you greet, and then there is your reward. BOOZE

    God would not have made wine so enjoyable if he did not want us to get rat faced
    Alcohol is a good social lubricant. I drink if I go out but almost never drink at home, I just don't see the point. I didn't drink any alcohol on our recent two week holiday because we were with my in-laws who don't drink, and it had no detrimental effect on my enjoyment of the holiday whatsoever.
    As a parent one difficulty I have is knowing precisely how to navigate the situation around alcohol as our kids approach 18. Legally the situation is basically nothing until your 18th birthday, then go ahead and knock yourself out. It seems to me that it's better to give them some leeway for underage drinking in their late teens so that it's a more gradual transition under a degree of parental supervision and they know how to handle it when they leave home - de facto this is what my parents did and I was a much more sensible drinker at Uni than the kids who hadn't been allowed to drink. But I've run into problems with that approach, eg my 16yo daughter had a party, we bought some 4% beer and cider, but some of the kids turned up with bottles of vodka and some of them ended up dangerously drunk (not my daughter, she was fine). I don't think it's reasonable (or even right) to expect them not to drink at all but it's a bit of a minefield both legally and morally.
    Are teenagers no longer allowed alcohol with meals? That would be the obvious preparation.
    Up to a point, although when they turn 18 and leave home they won't typically be going to a lot of dinner parties.
    My son seems to be establishing himself as teetotal, which is a bit of a shame given his father is now a vigneron but certainly means there's less of a fear around teenage parties.

    From the point of view of my vineyard the trend I really need is for people to drink less often, but mainly at home or with meals in restaurants, and to spend more per bottle. Treat themselves, rather than bingeing on prosecco and pinot grigio or sticking to beer. The less but better trend seems to have been happening with Millennials. The younger generation though seem to be skipping the booze altogether, which is worrying for long term viability.
    The pendulum will swing. This generation rising is puritan, judgmental and sober. Woke. Earnest and a bit humourless. if you are mean they are boring gits, if you approve they are upstanding citizens

    THEIR kids will probably be the most hellraising foul mouthed taboo-busting bunch of drunken druggies you can imagine. Like the 60s kids after the straightlaced 50s
    Based on my daughter's party I would say your characterisation of the nation's youth is somewhat wide of the mark...
    There’s no arguing with the stats. Boozing is way down with the Kidz. They don’t go to pubs as much. Also, things like teenage pregnancies are down. They are having less sex. Socialising rather less. This is all documented - not me imagining data

    i also have personal evidence from my own kids and my friends’ kids - in their late teens. A surprising number are entirely sober. That was unheard of in my youth

    But the cycle will cycle

  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576
    Possibly a bit disappointing for @LibDems and @UKLabour, who need a fair bit of tactical voting to knock a few holes in the so-called 'Blue Wall'? Maybe @EdwardJDavey needs a bigger orange mallet?

    https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1615661832974340097
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,045
    Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,245

    TOPPING said:

    Just had the best part of three months in hospital, so no alcohol. Come home to at least a glass of wine every night, which, apart from colouring my urine bag, seems to have had little effect.

    I noticed that my mother (who at 92 I believe has some years on you) has quietly switched from a daily glass of wine to a daily glass of port. And it seems to have done her no harm and a significant amount of good in terms of her daily life, although we don't have the counterfactual had she been teetotal.
    Was the change due to deteriorating tastebuds?
    I think just needed a bigger hit more efficiently.
  • Options

    Section 35 (emphasis added)

    35 Power to intervene in certain cases.U.K.
    This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
    (1)If a Bill contains provisions—
    (a)which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or
    (b)which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters,
    he may make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent.


    http://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2023/01/some-thoughts-on-today.html?m=1

    I wonder what legal advice Sturgeon has received (if any, she announced she was going to court before the grounds were published) and how the Lord Advocate will argue it.

    So the key points are
    • Does the Bill make modifications of the law
    • Do those modifications apply to reserved matters
    • Does the Secretary of State have reasonable grounds to believe that
      • Those modifications have an adverse effect on the operation of the law
      • And that those adverse effects apply to reserved matters
    The first two bullet points are straight questions of law, but the key third bullet point is a question of reasonable belief which can be difficult to argue against if sufficient advice has been taken by the Secretary of State to facilitate his belief.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,801
    edited January 2023

    Possibly a bit disappointing for @LibDems and @UKLabour, who need a fair bit of tactical voting to knock a few holes in the so-called 'Blue Wall'? Maybe @EdwardJDavey needs a bigger orange mallet?

    https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1615661832974340097

    Possibly a bit disappointing for @LibDems and @UKLabour, who need a fair bit of tactical voting to knock a few holes in the so-called 'Blue Wall'? Maybe @EdwardJDavey needs a bigger orange mallet?

    https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1615661832974340097

    Perhaps not.

    43% would easily cover the GE19

    Editing...
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,077
    edited January 2023

    Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.

    I think it’s the train drivers’ fault
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 25,057
    ...

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
    That post from HY is a keeper BigG!
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,846
    edited January 2023

    Section 35 (emphasis added)

    35 Power to intervene in certain cases.U.K.
    This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
    (1)If a Bill contains provisions—
    (a)which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or
    (b)which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters,
    he may make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent.


    http://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2023/01/some-thoughts-on-today.html?m=1

    I wonder what legal advice Sturgeon has received (if any, she announced she was going to court before the grounds were published) and how the Lord Advocate will argue it.

    Is this a reserved matter?
    Yes, under the Equal Opportunities section of the Scotland Act 1998, as amended by section F105 of the Scotland Act 2016.
    https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/schedule/5#commentary-key-35f6e9baf621cf404c6c2a6a61afb460
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
    Certainly if Sturgeon keeps taking deeply unpopular positions with most Scots like on her Gender Reform Bill which the UK government sides with Scots on then she will increase support for the Union.

    In time that may well increase even opposition to devolution too from its current levels of about 20 to 25% of Scots wanting to restore the Union as was pre New Labour
    Or alternatively, the people of Scotland can just elect a different Scottish government at the next elections.

    (To be fair, this isn't just a Conservative or Unionist blind spot. Something in the British political psyche has a real fear of somewhere dong things differently in case they end up doing it wrong. With the consequences we see around us.)
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576

    Section 35 (emphasis added)

    35 Power to intervene in certain cases.U.K.
    This section has no associated Explanatory Notes
    (1)If a Bill contains provisions—
    (a)which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would be incompatible with any international obligations or the interests of defence or national security, or
    (b)which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters,
    he may make an order prohibiting the Presiding Officer from submitting the Bill for Royal Assent.


    http://ianssmart.blogspot.com/2023/01/some-thoughts-on-today.html?m=1

    I wonder what legal advice Sturgeon has received (if any, she announced she was going to court before the grounds were published) and how the Lord Advocate will argue it.

    Is this a reserved matter?
    The Scotland Act is a reserved matter. The Equality Act is a reserved matter. Jack yesterday set out the reasons he believes Scotlands GRR Bill has an adverse effect on the operation of the Equality Act. To succeed in court the Scottish Government has to prove his grounds are unreasonable - a fairly high hurdle.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,846

    Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.

    There’s a lag of several months between harvest and supermarket, so last autumn’s wheat is now being sold as bread. Which is why I am predicting (possibly optimistically) a crash in inflation in the coming months, as these factors work through the system.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,982

    Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.

    Shipping must have something to do with it. I just bought a Getrag GS6-53BZ transmission (if you know, you know) from Texas and had to pay over $2,000 just to ship it!
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 31,924

    My children (!) drink less than I do, but more than their teenage children" although at our Diamond wedding party the teenage girls seemed to knock back a lot of Prosecco!
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,223
    Leon never gets "shouty" or "aggressive"???

    I see we're off on flights of fancy this morning.

    Time to get out into the sun....
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,099

    Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.

    The two most obvious explanations would be that:
    1. Retail companies previously did not pass on all the price increases, and so are now not passing on the price decreases so that they can rebuild profit margins.
    2. Other costs have increased, perhaps in part due to increased inflation expectations, and so higher inflation is now embedded into the economy.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,576

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
    Certainly if Sturgeon keeps taking deeply unpopular positions with most Scots like on her Gender Reform Bill which the UK government sides with Scots on then she will increase support for the Union.

    In time that may well increase even opposition to devolution too from its current levels of about 20 to 25% of Scots wanting to restore the Union as was pre New Labour
    Or alternatively, the people of Scotland can just elect a different Scottish government at the next elections.

    (To be fair, this isn't just a Conservative or Unionist blind spot. Something in the British political psyche has a real fear of somewhere dong things differently in case they end up doing it wrong. With the consequences we see around us.)
    I think the polling pretty consistently shows the Scots are happy with Holyrood as an institution, although their opinion of its incumbents may not be as rosy.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,372
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Leon said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    TOPPING said:

    Plus look at our society. Try to buy a Birthday/Anniversary/Congratulations on your New Job/Happy 10th Birthday card and 85% of them use some droll alcohol/gin reference.

    We get plastered, blotto, sloshed, etc. All vaguely heroic-sounding states.

    Go to LHR or any airport at 8.30am and the bars are chock full with people drinking.

    Then go to A&E on a Friday or Saturday night and see what this causes.

    As I, ahem, may have mentioned I used to do doorwork in Central London on Fridays and Saturdays and although Friday was marginally better (people simply not having had enough time to get fuelled up), Saturdays were often carnage.

    The UK does have a fantastically ugly relationship with alcohol. Only Russia comes close in my experience.

    Since my early 20s I've only ever had one tot of pusser's on Taranto Night and that's it for the year but I jacked that in about 5 years when we ran out and I couldn't be arsed to get another bottle. What I've noticed is that other people can be quite fantastically discommoded if you refuse to drink,
    Then you haven’t experienced much

    I'm talking about the social pressure from others to drink. I've only really experienced that in the UK and Russia. There are plenty of other places where people cane the hooch but they don't seem to care as much if other people don't.
    You will also find that social pressure in parts of China, Australia, Mongolia, Japan, and plenty other places

    Toasting with booze is a big thing throughout much of Asia, and it is deemed quite odd not to join in...
    South Korea, too.
    Similar to Japan, the 회식 "dining together" work event is traditionally accompanied by semi mandatory downing of shots - but per capita booze consumption seems to have declined quite significantly in the last decade.
    Young Koreans drink a lot less than their parents did.
    Yes, the decline in youthful boozing seems to be happening across the advanced world. Smart phones and social media must be a major cause
    Having to pay college fees and the realisation they have to save to pay for expensive housing comes into it, too.
  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,347

    Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.

    Supermarket profits, look how long it took for them to bring the petrol price down.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,174
    Dura_Ace said:

    Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.

    Shipping must have something to do with it. I just bought a Getrag GS6-53BZ transmission (if you know, you know) from Texas and had to pay over $2,000 just to ship it!


    It's route-dependent, but on average, the worst of the shipping cost spike is over.
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,801

    Possibly a bit disappointing for @LibDems and @UKLabour, who need a fair bit of tactical voting to knock a few holes in the so-called 'Blue Wall'? Maybe @EdwardJDavey needs a bigger orange mallet?

    https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1615661832974340097

    ...I'll try again having botched and been timed out on the previous edit.

    Perhaps not.

    43% would easily cover the GE19 Labour vote in a lot of these blue wall places

    Many GE19 Con -> LDs will regard themselves as switchers rather than tactical voters.
    GE19 LDs will mostly stick LD and will not regard it as tactical.
    So, a lot of the tactical bit is likely to be GE17/19 Lab to LD switching.

    43% seems substantial given the different thought processes that might be at play.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    edited January 2023

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
    Certainly if Sturgeon keeps taking deeply unpopular positions with most Scots like on her Gender Reform Bill which the UK government sides with Scots on then she will increase support for the Union.

    In time that may well increase even opposition to devolution too from its current levels of about 20 to 25% of Scots wanting to restore the Union as was pre New Labour
    Or alternatively, the people of Scotland can just elect a different Scottish government at the next elections.

    (To be fair, this isn't just a Conservative or Unionist blind spot. Something in the British political psyche has a real fear of somewhere dong things differently in case they end up doing it wrong. With the consequences we see around us.)
    And as the alternative would be a Labour or Conservative government, same as the rest of GB, why do they need the SNP and Scottish government anyway at that point?
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,969
    Mr. kinabalu, if guidance is ridiculous it reduces the chance of people listening to other advice from the same source.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    Possibly a bit disappointing for @LibDems and @UKLabour, who need a fair bit of tactical voting to knock a few holes in the so-called 'Blue Wall'? Maybe @EdwardJDavey needs a bigger orange mallet?

    https://twitter.com/ProfTimBale/status/1615661832974340097

    One thing Sunak is reducing is the tactical voting there would have been from Labour and LD voters against a Boris or Truss led Tories.

    Even if the headline Tory voteshare is still a bit less than under Boris with more leakage to RefUK
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,846
    Dura_Ace said:

    Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.

    Shipping must have something to do with it. I just bought a Getrag GS6-53BZ transmission (if you know, you know) from Texas and had to pay over $2,000 just to ship it!
    $2k in shipping for a gearbox, from the US? Give me a bag of sand, and I’ll go there and collect it for you!
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,372
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    An insane number of my friends are giving up booze altogether. I now try only to drink on Saturday during winter and Friday and Saturday otherwise (1x bottle per night). And the very, very occasional (because I feel worse on T+1) strong gin on those nights.

    And although I bloody love drinking a decent rouge of an evening, nevertheless even one bottle gives me a fuzzy head the next day I don't like. I really like the feeling of clarity and sharpness, today for example, when I haven't drunk anything for a few days.

    Given the PB demographic of mainly old white blokes I am genuinely surprised that people here drink 1x bottle/day. That is a lot and each morning must feel a struggle. I don't like that struggle.

    Plus the docs (what do they know) say give it a few alcohol-free days per week and who's to say they aren't right in this instance.

    But I simply don’t get that fuzzy head. I don’t get hangovers (they stopped about 20 years ago). This might be a sign I am about to die of cirrhosis, but it hasn’t happened yet. I have to drink TWO bottles of red (and I rarely go that far) before I start to feel a bit shit next day

    Otherwise, I feel fine when I wake. No struggle at alll
    Truly a gift.

    No wonder you are so carefree about the wine you try out.

    That is 30 cases a year of wine you are drinking.
    Yes, I drink a FUCK of a lot of wine, so I like to vary it, and the exploration is fun. If I was more like you and having one bottle every now and then I would probably retreat to guaranteed quality

    This does not apply in Thailand however. Here I drink 19 Crimes - Red Blend,Shiraz. Malbec, Cab Sauv. It’s perfectly acceptable and…. It does not cost £40 a bottle like every other red wine. Taxes on wine here are insane
    How sad that you need alcohol - you'll feel so much better if you quit
    Er, with all due respect, how the fuck do you know? We’ve never met

    I ENJOY drinking. Indeed I love it. I love the buzz of that first cracking gin and tonic. I love the discovery of a new red from some mad place. I love the mouthfeel of an excellent margarita, the salt on the lips, crunchy, and intoxicating. MMMMMM. I love a picnic in sunny English countryside knowing there’s a chilled bottle of Nyetimber or Meursault waiting to go with the cheese and strawberries and jamon iberica de bellota

    It also makes meals much more enjoyable, it makes socialising smoother and happier, it gives the day a delicious structure. You work hard, you go the gym, you meet and you greet, and then there is your reward. BOOZE

    God would not have made wine so enjoyable if he did not want us to get rat faced
    Alcohol is a good social lubricant. I drink if I go out but almost never drink at home, I just don't see the point. I didn't drink any alcohol on our recent two week holiday because we were with my in-laws who don't drink, and it had no detrimental effect on my enjoyment of the holiday whatsoever.
    As a parent one difficulty I have is knowing precisely how to navigate the situation around alcohol as our kids approach 18. Legally the situation is basically nothing until your 18th birthday, then go ahead and knock yourself out. It seems to me that it's better to give them some leeway for underage drinking in their late teens so that it's a more gradual transition under a degree of parental supervision and they know how to handle it when they leave home - de facto this is what my parents did and I was a much more sensible drinker at Uni than the kids who hadn't been allowed to drink. But I've run into problems with that approach, eg my 16yo daughter had a party, we bought some 4% beer and cider, but some of the kids turned up with bottles of vodka and some of them ended up dangerously drunk (not my daughter, she was fine). I don't think it's reasonable (or even right) to expect them not to drink at all but it's a bit of a minefield both legally and morally.
    Are teenagers no longer allowed alcohol with meals? That would be the obvious preparation.
    Up to a point, although when they turn 18 and leave home they won't typically be going to a lot of dinner parties.
    My son seems to be establishing himself as teetotal, which is a bit of a shame given his father is now a vigneron but certainly means there's less of a fear around teenage parties.

    From the point of view of my vineyard the trend I really need is for people to drink less often, but mainly at home or with meals in restaurants, and to spend more per bottle. Treat themselves, rather than bingeing on prosecco and pinot grigio or sticking to beer. The less but better trend seems to have been happening with Millennials. The younger generation though seem to be skipping the booze altogether, which is worrying for long term viability.
    The pendulum will swing. This generation rising is puritan, judgmental and sober. Woke. Earnest and a bit humourless. if you are mean they are boring gits, if you approve they are upstanding citizens

    THEIR kids will probably be the most hellraising foul mouthed taboo-busting bunch of drunken druggies you can imagine. Like the 60s kids after the straightlaced 50s
    Based on my daughter's party I would say your characterisation of the nation's youth is somewhat wide of the mark...
    There’s no arguing with the stats. Boozing is way down with the Kidz. They don’t go to pubs as much. Also, things like teenage pregnancies are down. They are having less sex. Socialising rather less. This is all documented - not me imagining data

    i also have personal evidence from my own kids and my friends’ kids - in their late teens. A surprising number are entirely sober. That was unheard of in my youth

    tbf, your kids might just be deriving vicarious lessons from their dad's example ?
    Of mine, one drinks and the other doesn't much at all, FWIW.
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,099
    Sandpit said:

    Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.

    There’s a lag of several months between harvest and supermarket, so last autumn’s wheat is now being sold as bread. Which is why I am predicting (possibly optimistically) a crash in inflation in the coming months, as these factors work through the system.
    The interesting thing is that is happening in Ireland already. They had negative month-on-month inflation in December, compared to +0.4% in the UK.

    So the questions then are, is there a longer lag for the British economy, or are there some other factors which are sustaining inflation at a higher rate?

    Will be interesting to see if the difference is sustained.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,982
    Nigelb said:



    Having to pay college fees and the realisation they have to save to pay for expensive housing comes into it, too.

    There's something else at play too. Plenty of my students (admittedly middle class over-achievers) don't drink and view it as something 'scrotes', 'scrandies' and 'slines' do. It's just not cool.
  • Options
    SelebianSelebian Posts: 7,398
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    An insane number of my friends are giving up booze altogether. I now try only to drink on Saturday during winter and Friday and Saturday otherwise (1x bottle per night). And the very, very occasional (because I feel worse on T+1) strong gin on those nights.

    And although I bloody love drinking a decent rouge of an evening, nevertheless even one bottle gives me a fuzzy head the next day I don't like. I really like the feeling of clarity and sharpness, today for example, when I haven't drunk anything for a few days.

    Given the PB demographic of mainly old white blokes I am genuinely surprised that people here drink 1x bottle/day. That is a lot and each morning must feel a struggle. I don't like that struggle.

    Plus the docs (what do they know) say give it a few alcohol-free days per week and who's to say they aren't right in this instance.

    But I simply don’t get that fuzzy head. I don’t get hangovers (they stopped about 20 years ago). This might be a sign I am about to die of cirrhosis, but it hasn’t happened yet. I have to drink TWO bottles of red (and I rarely go that far) before I start to feel a bit shit next day

    Otherwise, I feel fine when I wake. No struggle at alll
    Truly a gift.

    No wonder you are so carefree about the wine you try out.

    That is 30 cases a year of wine you are drinking.
    Yes, I drink a FUCK of a lot of wine, so I like to vary it, and the exploration is fun. If I was more like you and having one bottle every now and then I would probably retreat to guaranteed quality

    This does not apply in Thailand however. Here I drink 19 Crimes - Red Blend,Shiraz. Malbec, Cab Sauv. It’s perfectly acceptable and…. It does not cost £40 a bottle like every other red wine. Taxes on wine here are insane
    How sad that you need alcohol - you'll feel so much better if you quit
    Er, with all due respect, how the fuck do you know? We’ve never met

    I ENJOY drinking. Indeed I love it. I love the buzz of that first cracking gin and tonic. I love the discovery of a new red from some mad place. I love the mouthfeel of an excellent margarita, the salt on the lips, crunchy, and intoxicating. MMMMMM. I love a picnic in sunny English countryside knowing there’s a chilled bottle of Nyetimber or Meursault waiting to go with the cheese and strawberries and jamon iberica de bellota

    It also makes meals much more enjoyable, it makes socialising smoother and happier, it gives the day a delicious structure. You work hard, you go the gym, you meet and you greet, and then there is your reward. BOOZE

    God would not have made wine so enjoyable if he did not want us to get rat faced
    Alcohol is a good social lubricant. I drink if I go out but almost never drink at home, I just don't see the point. I didn't drink any alcohol on our recent two week holiday because we were with my in-laws who don't drink, and it had no detrimental effect on my enjoyment of the holiday whatsoever.
    As a parent one difficulty I have is knowing precisely how to navigate the situation around alcohol as our kids approach 18. Legally the situation is basically nothing until your 18th birthday, then go ahead and knock yourself out. It seems to me that it's better to give them some leeway for underage drinking in their late teens so that it's a more gradual transition under a degree of parental supervision and they know how to handle it when they leave home - de facto this is what my parents did and I was a much more sensible drinker at Uni than the kids who hadn't been allowed to drink. But I've run into problems with that approach, eg my 16yo daughter had a party, we bought some 4% beer and cider, but some of the kids turned up with bottles of vodka and some of them ended up dangerously drunk (not my daughter, she was fine). I don't think it's reasonable (or even right) to expect them not to drink at all but it's a bit of a minefield both legally and morally.
    Are teenagers no longer allowed alcohol with meals? That would be the obvious preparation.
    Up to a point, although when they turn 18 and leave home they won't typically be going to a lot of dinner parties.
    My son seems to be establishing himself as teetotal, which is a bit of a shame given his father is now a vigneron but certainly means there's less of a fear around teenage parties.

    From the point of view of my vineyard the trend I really need is for people to drink less often, but mainly at home or with meals in restaurants, and to spend more per bottle. Treat themselves, rather than bingeing on prosecco and pinot grigio or sticking to beer. The less but better trend seems to have been happening with Millennials. The younger generation though seem to be skipping the booze altogether, which is worrying for long term viability.
    The pendulum will swing. This generation rising is puritan, judgmental and sober. Woke. Earnest and a bit humourless. if you are mean they are boring gits, if you approve they are upstanding citizens

    THEIR kids will probably be the most hellraising foul mouthed taboo-busting bunch of drunken druggies you can imagine. Like the 60s kids after the straightlaced 50s
    Based on my daughter's party I would say your characterisation of the nation's youth is somewhat wide of the mark...
    There’s no arguing with the stats. Boozing is way down with the Kidz. They don’t go to pubs as much. Also, things like teenage pregnancies are down. They are having less sex. Socialising rather less. This is all documented - not me imagining data

    i also have personal evidence from my own kids and my friends’ kids - in their late teens. A surprising number are entirely sober. That was unheard of in my youth

    tbf, your kids might just be deriving vicarious lessons from their dad's example ?
    Of mine, one drinks and the other doesn't much at all, FWIW.
    My three are all teetotal. The eldest is five though (and he has asked to try my beer, so his abstentionism may not last).
  • Options
    turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 15,120

    Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.

    As I understand it the inflation is year on year - so the prices in Jan 2022 vs Jan 2023. In the next couple of months we go past the surge in inflation last year, so the inflation rate should reduce markedly, just not quite yet.
  • Options
    We all know Crypto is a scam-cum-Ponzi scheme but this is a truly horrific story.

    https://dlnews.com/articles/celsius-crypto-customer-fred-shanks-fury-as-bitcoin-trapped-in-collapsed-lender
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
    Certainly if Sturgeon keeps taking deeply unpopular positions with most Scots like on her Gender Reform Bill which the UK government sides with Scots on then she will increase support for the Union.

    In time that may well increase even opposition to devolution too from its current levels of about 20 to 25% of Scots wanting to restore the Union as was pre New Labour
    Or alternatively, the people of Scotland can just elect a different Scottish government at the next elections.

    (To be fair, this isn't just a Conservative or Unionist blind spot. Something in the British political psyche has a real fear of somewhere dong things differently in case they end up doing it wrong. With the consequences we see around us.)
    And as the alternative would be a Labour or Conservative government, same as the rest of GB, why do they need the SNP and Scottish government anyway at that point?
    You just keep reaffirming your utter ignorance of the Scots and their politics

    As a supporter of the union I am also a supporter of devolution and hope that in time the Scots elect a different government to the SNP but the idea the Scots would want to eradicate Holyrood and be ruled by Westminster is just one of your many flights of fantasy
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
    Certainly if Sturgeon keeps taking deeply unpopular positions with most Scots like on her Gender Reform Bill which the UK government sides with Scots on then she will increase support for the Union.

    In time that may well increase even opposition to devolution too from its current levels of about 20 to 25% of Scots wanting to restore the Union as was pre New Labour
    Or alternatively, the people of Scotland can just elect a different Scottish government at the next elections.

    (To be fair, this isn't just a Conservative or Unionist blind spot. Something in the British political psyche has a real fear of somewhere dong things differently in case they end up doing it wrong. With the consequences we see around us.)
    And as the alternative would be a Labour or Conservative government, same as the rest of GB, why do they need the SNP and Scottish government anyway at that point?
    You just keep reaffirming your utter ignorance of the Scots and their politics

    As a supporter of the union I am also a supporter of devolution and hope that in time the Scots elect a different government to the SNP but the idea the Scots would want to eradicate Holyrood and be ruled by Westminster is just one of your many flights of fantasy
    25% of Scots voted against devolution even in 1997, I expect more unpopular bills like this from Sturgeon will increase that total and certainly increase support for the Union

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Scottish_devolution_referendum
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,846

    We all know Crypto is a scam-cum-Ponzi scheme but this is a truly horrific story.

    https://dlnews.com/articles/celsius-crypto-customer-fred-shanks-fury-as-bitcoin-trapped-in-collapsed-lender

    This decentralisedregulated finance thing is going so well…
  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,347
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:



    Having to pay college fees and the realisation they have to save to pay for expensive housing comes into it, too.

    There's something else at play too. Plenty of my students (admittedly middle class over-achievers) don't drink and view it as something 'scrotes', 'scrandies' and 'slines' do. It's just not cool.
    I think online gaming has a lot to do with it. Young peeople much prefer to stay in their room and play whatever the latest game is with their friends rather than going out.
  • Options
    GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 19,077
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
    Certainly if Sturgeon keeps taking deeply unpopular positions with most Scots like on her Gender Reform Bill which the UK government sides with Scots on then she will increase support for the Union.

    In time that may well increase even opposition to devolution too from its current levels of about 20 to 25% of Scots wanting to restore the Union as was pre New Labour
    Or alternatively, the people of Scotland can just elect a different Scottish government at the next elections.

    (To be fair, this isn't just a Conservative or Unionist blind spot. Something in the British political psyche has a real fear of somewhere dong things differently in case they end up doing it wrong. With the consequences we see around us.)
    And as the alternative would be a Labour or Conservative government, same as the rest of GB, why do they need the SNP and Scottish government anyway at that point?
    You just keep reaffirming your utter ignorance of the Scots and their politics

    As a supporter of the union I am also a supporter of devolution and hope that in time the Scots elect a different government to the SNP but the idea the Scots would want to eradicate Holyrood and be ruled by Westminster is just one of your many flights of fantasy
    25% of Scots voted against devolution even in 1997, I expect more unpopular bills like this from Sturgeon will increase that total and certainly increase support for the Union

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Scottish_devolution_referendum
    Your supply of hopium must be filled to the brim
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,372
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:



    Having to pay college fees and the realisation they have to save to pay for expensive housing comes into it, too.

    There's something else at play too. Plenty of my students (admittedly middle class over-achievers) don't drink and view it as something 'scrotes', 'scrandies' and 'slines' do. It's just not cool.
    The woke generation doesn't use such language...
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
    Certainly if Sturgeon keeps taking deeply unpopular positions with most Scots like on her Gender Reform Bill which the UK government sides with Scots on then she will increase support for the Union.

    In time that may well increase even opposition to devolution too from its current levels of about 20 to 25% of Scots wanting to restore the Union as was pre New Labour
    Or alternatively, the people of Scotland can just elect a different Scottish government at the next elections.

    (To be fair, this isn't just a Conservative or Unionist blind spot. Something in the British political psyche has a real fear of somewhere dong things differently in case they end up doing it wrong. With the consequences we see around us.)
    And as the alternative would be a Labour or Conservative government, same as the rest of GB, why do they need the SNP and Scottish government anyway at that point?
    You just keep reaffirming your utter ignorance of the Scots and their politics

    As a supporter of the union I am also a supporter of devolution and hope that in time the Scots elect a different government to the SNP but the idea the Scots would want to eradicate Holyrood and be ruled by Westminster is just one of your many flights of fantasy
    25% of Scots voted against devolution even in 1997, I expect more unpopular bills like this from Sturgeon will increase that total and certainly increase support for the Union

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Scottish_devolution_referendum
    Increase support for the Union is not the same as your flight of fantasy that the Scots want to abolish Holyrood and be ruled by Westminster
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,229

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    kinabalu said:

    Leon said:

    carnforth said:

    For those who think our 14 drinks a week guidance is prissy:

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64311705

    "If you must drink at all, two drinks maximum each week is deemed low-risk by the government-backed guidance."

    I drink, on average, a bottle of red wine every day and a smattering of gin and tonics. Sometimes more, rarely less. The odd dry day here and there

    And I have had a a fucking HOOT for forty adult years
    No doubt you're exaggerating like "hellraisers" always do. If a "hellraiser" says he's on a bottle of vodka a day the truth will be about a third of that.

    But on the offchance you're not, I'd ease off a bit.
    A bottle a day is pretty standard, because if God wasn't OK with it why did he make bottles that size? I would be genuinely happy if Brexit had led to wine coming in pints, because half bottles are too small to bother with.
    Too much for one not enough for two is I believe the official categorisation according to Boris Winston.

    Albeit he was talking about champagne presumably as a sharpener before his proper drinking began.
    His sharpener was actually a tumbler of scotch in his bathroom in the morning. He called it his “mouthwash”. Or so the anecdote has it

    It is remarkable to think that our greatest prime minister got the nation through its greatest crisis, and achieved perhaps its greatest triumph, while being completely shitfaced 85% of the waking day
    The point about Churchill's mouthwash is that it was so dilute, presumably from his days in India when the water could not be trusted. Champagne by the pint and brandy came later in the day.
    IIRC he did the one about adding more soda to his whisky and soda as the day progressed - so it started strong and ended up as virtually pure soda water
  • Options
    FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 3,896
    edited January 2023
    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TimS said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    An insane number of my friends are giving up booze altogether. I now try only to drink on Saturday during winter and Friday and Saturday otherwise (1x bottle per night). And the very, very occasional (because I feel worse on T+1) strong gin on those nights.

    And although I bloody love drinking a decent rouge of an evening, nevertheless even one bottle gives me a fuzzy head the next day I don't like. I really like the feeling of clarity and sharpness, today for example, when I haven't drunk anything for a few days.

    Given the PB demographic of mainly old white blokes I am genuinely surprised that people here drink 1x bottle/day. That is a lot and each morning must feel a struggle. I don't like that struggle.

    Plus the docs (what do they know) say give it a few alcohol-free days per week and who's to say they aren't right in this instance.

    But I simply don’t get that fuzzy head. I don’t get hangovers (they stopped about 20 years ago). This might be a sign I am about to die of cirrhosis, but it hasn’t happened yet. I have to drink TWO bottles of red (and I rarely go that far) before I start to feel a bit shit next day

    Otherwise, I feel fine when I wake. No struggle at alll
    Truly a gift.

    No wonder you are so carefree about the wine you try out.

    That is 30 cases a year of wine you are drinking.
    Yes, I drink a FUCK of a lot of wine, so I like to vary it, and the exploration is fun. If I was more like you and having one bottle every now and then I would probably retreat to guaranteed quality

    This does not apply in Thailand however. Here I drink 19 Crimes - Red Blend,Shiraz. Malbec, Cab Sauv. It’s perfectly acceptable and…. It does not cost £40 a bottle like every other red wine. Taxes on wine here are insane
    How sad that you need alcohol - you'll feel so much better if you quit
    Er, with all due respect, how the fuck do you know? We’ve never met

    I ENJOY drinking. Indeed I love it. I love the buzz of that first cracking gin and tonic. I love the discovery of a new red from some mad place. I love the mouthfeel of an excellent margarita, the salt on the lips, crunchy, and intoxicating. MMMMMM. I love a picnic in sunny English countryside knowing there’s a chilled bottle of Nyetimber or Meursault waiting to go with the cheese and strawberries and jamon iberica de bellota

    It also makes meals much more enjoyable, it makes socialising smoother and happier, it gives the day a delicious structure. You work hard, you go the gym, you meet and you greet, and then there is your reward. BOOZE

    God would not have made wine so enjoyable if he did not want us to get rat faced
    Alcohol is a good social lubricant. I drink if I go out but almost never drink at home, I just don't see the point. I didn't drink any alcohol on our recent two week holiday because we were with my in-laws who don't drink, and it had no detrimental effect on my enjoyment of the holiday whatsoever.
    As a parent one difficulty I have is knowing precisely how to navigate the situation around alcohol as our kids approach 18. Legally the situation is basically nothing until your 18th birthday, then go ahead and knock yourself out. It seems to me that it's better to give them some leeway for underage drinking in their late teens so that it's a more gradual transition under a degree of parental supervision and they know how to handle it when they leave home - de facto this is what my parents did and I was a much more sensible drinker at Uni than the kids who hadn't been allowed to drink. But I've run into problems with that approach, eg my 16yo daughter had a party, we bought some 4% beer and cider, but some of the kids turned up with bottles of vodka and some of them ended up dangerously drunk (not my daughter, she was fine). I don't think it's reasonable (or even right) to expect them not to drink at all but it's a bit of a minefield both legally and morally.
    Are teenagers no longer allowed alcohol with meals? That would be the obvious preparation.
    Up to a point, although when they turn 18 and leave home they won't typically be going to a lot of dinner parties.
    My son seems to be establishing himself as teetotal, which is a bit of a shame given his father is now a vigneron but certainly means there's less of a fear around teenage parties.

    From the point of view of my vineyard the trend I really need is for people to drink less often, but mainly at home or with meals in restaurants, and to spend more per bottle. Treat themselves, rather than bingeing on prosecco and pinot grigio or sticking to beer. The less but better trend seems to have been happening with Millennials. The younger generation though seem to be skipping the booze altogether, which is worrying for long term viability.
    The pendulum will swing. This generation rising is puritan, judgmental and sober. Woke. Earnest and a bit humourless. if you are mean they are boring gits, if you approve they are upstanding citizens

    THEIR kids will probably be the most hellraising foul mouthed taboo-busting bunch of drunken druggies you can imagine. Like the 60s kids after the straightlaced 50s
    Based on my daughter's party I would say your characterisation of the nation's youth is somewhat wide of the mark...
    There’s no arguing with the stats. Boozing is way down with the Kidz. They don’t go to pubs as much. Also, things like teenage pregnancies are down. They are having less sex. Socialising rather less. This is all documented - not me imagining data

    i also have personal evidence from my own kids and my friends’ kids - in their late teens. A surprising number are entirely sober. That was unheard of in my youth

    tbf, your kids might just be deriving vicarious lessons from their dad's example ?
    Of mine, one drinks and the other doesn't much at all, FWIW.
    My lad certainly enjoys a drink and seems to behave pretty much as I did at his age (19). Perhaps the main difference is that he and his mates tend to have "pres" at someone's house before going out clubbing rather than going to the pub because pubs are so expensive nowadays (with the exception of 'spoons). He tells me that Oxford is awash with booze at various events, and that half the private school kids are on cocaine.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
    Certainly if Sturgeon keeps taking deeply unpopular positions with most Scots like on her Gender Reform Bill which the UK government sides with Scots on then she will increase support for the Union.

    In time that may well increase even opposition to devolution too from its current levels of about 20 to 25% of Scots wanting to restore the Union as was pre New Labour
    Or alternatively, the people of Scotland can just elect a different Scottish government at the next elections.

    (To be fair, this isn't just a Conservative or Unionist blind spot. Something in the British political psyche has a real fear of somewhere dong things differently in case they end up doing it wrong. With the consequences we see around us.)
    And as the alternative would be a Labour or Conservative government, same as the rest of GB, why do they need the SNP and Scottish government anyway at that point?
    You just keep reaffirming your utter ignorance of the Scots and their politics

    As a supporter of the union I am also a supporter of devolution and hope that in time the Scots elect a different government to the SNP but the idea the Scots would want to eradicate Holyrood and be ruled by Westminster is just one of your many flights of fantasy
    25% of Scots voted against devolution even in 1997, I expect more unpopular bills like this from Sturgeon will increase that total and certainly increase support for the Union

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Scottish_devolution_referendum
    Increase support for the Union is not the same as your flight of fantasy that the Scots want to abolish Holyrood and be ruled by Westminster
    I never said they did, however unpopular bills like this from Holyrood will reduce support for devolution as well as for independence was my point, even if more like you support the former but not the latter
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,982

    We all know Crypto is a scam-cum-Ponzi scheme but this is a truly horrific story.

    https://dlnews.com/articles/celsius-crypto-customer-fred-shanks-fury-as-bitcoin-trapped-in-collapsed-lender

    I understand exactly 0% of that article. Is this guy a moron, greedy or a victim or all three?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,229

    We all know Crypto is a scam-cum-Ponzi scheme but this is a truly horrific story.

    https://dlnews.com/articles/celsius-crypto-customer-fred-shanks-fury-as-bitcoin-trapped-in-collapsed-lender

    All those pesky rules you hate in finance?

    Turns out there was a reason for them.

    Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,969
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,229
    Dura_Ace said:

    We all know Crypto is a scam-cum-Ponzi scheme but this is a truly horrific story.

    https://dlnews.com/articles/celsius-crypto-customer-fred-shanks-fury-as-bitcoin-trapped-in-collapsed-lender

    I understand exactly 0% of that article. Is this guy a moron, greedy or a victim or all three?
    Cryptocurrency itself isn’t a scam. Usually. The currencies exists and people buy and sell them.

    It’s just that 100% of the exchanges, vendors etc of Crypto currencies are a curious combination of sharks, crooks, idiots and self-delusional. Generally, all of those at once.

    It’s like coming across a Mexican Drug cartel that runs out of bullets and drugs. Because the guy running it decided to invest all the income in fur bearing trout farms.
  • Options
    TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 114,294
    edited January 2023
    Dura_Ace said:

    We all know Crypto is a scam-cum-Ponzi scheme but this is a truly horrific story.

    https://dlnews.com/articles/celsius-crypto-customer-fred-shanks-fury-as-bitcoin-trapped-in-collapsed-lender

    I understand exactly 0% of that article. Is this guy a moron, greedy or a victim or all three?
    Mostly a victim.

    There's a golden rule in life which particularly applies to banking and financial services, if a deal is too good to be true then it usually is.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,229
    Dura_Ace said:

    We all know Crypto is a scam-cum-Ponzi scheme but this is a truly horrific story.

    https://dlnews.com/articles/celsius-crypto-customer-fred-shanks-fury-as-bitcoin-trapped-in-collapsed-lender

    I understand exactly 0% of that article. Is this guy a moron, greedy or a victim or all three?
    Yes
  • Options
    LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 15,099

    Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.

    As I understand it the inflation is year on year - so the prices in Jan 2022 vs Jan 2023. In the next couple of months we go past the surge in inflation last year, so the inflation rate should reduce markedly, just not quite yet.
    Looking at the figures for recent months in Ireland and the UK, and there seems to be a bit of a divergence.

    https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-cpi/consumerpriceindexdecember2022/

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/bulletins/consumerpriceinflation/december2022

    Inflation in Ireland for the last five months comes to +1.9%
    Inflation in Britain for the last five months comes to +3.3%

    That would seem to be heading for inflation in Ireland moderating to ~4%, but to ~7% in Britain.

    I guess it's possible this is just a timing issue, as the OFGEM price cap would create a timing difference, but on the face of it looks concerning.
  • Options
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    Carnyx said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    FWIW
    Whether the s35 Order is justified depends on reasons advanced by HMG for saying GRR has adverse effect on UK equality law. For the reasons I have tweeted those reasons do not begin to justify its use. It’s a nuclear weapon used in a minor skirmish.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615424816680472594

    His arguments.
    https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1615400867015819278

    I agree. I've read the UKG submission and it's flimsy imo. Unless you dispense with the concept of materiality I can't see how it stands.
    I'm not predicting how any ruling will go.
    I'm just pointing out that this sets a very low bar for the use of what is a constitutional sledgehammer.

    The Scottish legislation may well be a mistake, but devolution, if we're serious about it, means letting the Scottish parliament make its own mistakes. If we're not, that will also have consequences.
    Quite, not least because ignoring devolution means the Westminster parliament imposing its mistakes on Scotland. For instance, not doing anything to abolish feudal law. It took the reconvened Scottish Parliament to sort that out pretty quickly (and that was when it was firmly Unionist in composition).
    I'm on the opposite side to you on independence - if I had a vote on the issue, I'd vote against it. But I wouldn't deny Scotland a further vote on independence, and I take devolution seriously.
    Quite. That major change (of huge benefit to those people whose feudal superiority hadn't been bought out at a large ransom already - think leasehold vs freehold in England) happened long before anyone seriously thought Holyrood Parliaments could lead to independence; indeed, the whole reason for the latter was to kill indy stone dead.
    If Sturgeon keeps making legislation 2/3 of Scots oppose like this one, then soon there won't just be increased opposition to independence but increased support to scrap Holyrood completely and restore the original Union as it was before Blair
    Good morning

    You never fail to make the most ridiculous claims and this is up with the best

    You do not know or understand the Scots or Scotland to even suggest that at sometime in the future the Scots will want to restore the original union
    Certainly if Sturgeon keeps taking deeply unpopular positions with most Scots like on her Gender Reform Bill which the UK government sides with Scots on then she will increase support for the Union.

    In time that may well increase even opposition to devolution too from its current levels of about 20 to 25% of Scots wanting to restore the Union as was pre New Labour
    So because a few polls show that people aren't supportive of the GRR bill, they will turn away from the SNP and support the Tories instead? The same Tories who were so riven on the issue that they were given a free vote despite Dross being so vehemently opposed? That instead of supporting Scottish independence they will now back the use of a Tory veto in Westminster to neuter them?

    You do have a vivid imagination! Its literally "we may be 20 points plus behind in the polls, but don't worry - propagating the fear of the lady cock will win the day!!!"
  • Options

    We all know Crypto is a scam-cum-Ponzi scheme but this is a truly horrific story.

    https://dlnews.com/articles/celsius-crypto-customer-fred-shanks-fury-as-bitcoin-trapped-in-collapsed-lender

    All those pesky rules you hate in finance?

    Turns out there was a reason for them.

    Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
    I like rules in finance, makes my job even more essential.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,229
    Who can forget this hard hitting documentary on the Evuls!! Of!! CAKE!!!

    https://youtu.be/Xbq3kc29Tmg
  • Options

    Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.

    The trading price of a bushel of wheat may have dropped, the production cost has increased thanks to the culling of farming subsidies and of the UK's ability to make fertiliser.
  • Options
    FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,045
    Powerful piece on the west's bungling approach to Ukraine (over decades) starting with George H W Bush's chicken kiev speech.

    https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/11207
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,846

    We all know Crypto is a scam-cum-Ponzi scheme but this is a truly horrific story.

    https://dlnews.com/articles/celsius-crypto-customer-fred-shanks-fury-as-bitcoin-trapped-in-collapsed-lender

    All those pesky rules you hate in finance?

    Turns out there was a reason for them.

    Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
    The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.

    In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
  • Options

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:



    Having to pay college fees and the realisation they have to save to pay for expensive housing comes into it, too.

    There's something else at play too. Plenty of my students (admittedly middle class over-achievers) don't drink and view it as something 'scrotes', 'scrandies' and 'slines' do. It's just not cool.
    I think online gaming has a lot to do with it. Young peeople much prefer to stay in their room and play whatever the latest game is with their friends rather than going out.
    And a lot of young people will be officially-teetotal Muslims; others will have nowhere to go because so many pubs have closed.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 44,229

    We all know Crypto is a scam-cum-Ponzi scheme but this is a truly horrific story.

    https://dlnews.com/articles/celsius-crypto-customer-fred-shanks-fury-as-bitcoin-trapped-in-collapsed-lender

    All those pesky rules you hate in finance?

    Turns out there was a reason for them.

    Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
    I like rules in finance, makes my job even more essential.
    I like rules in finance. Partly because I have money in banks.

    Partly because I can say things like “That is an interesting idea. Implementing it will result in 3-5 years under current sentencing guidelines.”

    Which is handy for shutting down stupid shit with no blowback.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,372
    Did we do the Mogg nonsense yet ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64294885
    Ministers are facing a clash with opposition and Conservative MPs over their plans to scrap EU-era laws copied over to UK law after Brexit.
    Under government proposals, thousands of laws are due to expire automatically after December unless specifically kept or replaced.
    It has prompted concerns that important legislation could lapse by accident...


    One, it's an enormous waste of civil service time - yet another Brexit distraction - and two, it's an enormous legislative power grab by ministers, largely bypassing Parliamentary discussion.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,372
    edited January 2023

    Can anyone explain these continual price rises? Commodities like oil and wheat have come right down but it doesn't seem to be helping much at the supermarket.

    The trading price of a bushel of wheat may have dropped, the production cost has increased thanks to the culling of farming subsidies and of the UK's ability to make fertiliser.
    And changes in output prices lag commodity price changes, both on the way up and the way down.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,483
    Sandpit said:

    We all know Crypto is a scam-cum-Ponzi scheme but this is a truly horrific story.

    https://dlnews.com/articles/celsius-crypto-customer-fred-shanks-fury-as-bitcoin-trapped-in-collapsed-lender

    All those pesky rules you hate in finance?

    Turns out there was a reason for them.

    Bit like H&S - every rule is written as a result of accident(s)/incident(s).
    The best analogy I’ve seen in the last few months, is that “Crypto” is currently speedrunning through the past century and a half of financial regulation, seemingly having learned nothing, in pursuit of a big buck.

    In aviation, it’s often said that the regulations are written in blood, so many of them having come out of the relentless analysis of incidents and accidents. Which is why fewer people are killed on planes now than decades ago, despite an exponential increase in air traffic.
    We're going to see a lot of this over JRM's "bonfire of EU regulations" over the next few months too. As soon as the bonfire hits actual real life - especially environmental and animal welfare protections - is becomes clear either why the rules are there in the first place, or that the rules aren't strict enough and need to be tightened.

    Same will be true of any regulations affecting consumer protection. A lot of people like the abstract idea of cutting red tape and deregulation to set enterprise free, until they realise that means more nitrates leaching into their nearby river, toys with dangerous bits that toddlers might choke on or oddly named chemicals on their fruit and veg.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 9,483
    Nigelb said:

    Did we do the Mogg nonsense yet ?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64294885
    Ministers are facing a clash with opposition and Conservative MPs over their plans to scrap EU-era laws copied over to UK law after Brexit.
    Under government proposals, thousands of laws are due to expire automatically after December unless specifically kept or replaced.
    It has prompted concerns that important legislation could lapse by accident...


    One, it's an enormous waste of civil service time - yet another Brexit distraction - and two, it's an enormous legislative power grab by ministers, largely bypassing Parliamentary discussion.

    As it happens I was just doing my last post on it when you asked. More binfire than bonfire.
This discussion has been closed.