Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
According to the government's own data, 209 migrants were detected crossing the Channel yesterday (17/3/23). No idea how many were undetected.
So it doesn't look as if the legislation introduced earlier this month is having much of a deterrent impact yet, especially given the intention to apply the legislation retrospectively from 7/3 once it has gone through Parliament.
For the best part of a century, Switzerland’s financial USP was discretion, carefully protected by banking secrecy laws. Or, more bluntly, Swiss banks were where you hid your money, few questions asked. That ended as a result of US fury on discovering how UBS and others had helped US taxpayers evade tax. So the new USP became expertise: put your money in Switzerland not to hide it but because Swiss bankers know how to manage it well.
Shows how behand the times I am. Where do people now go to hide their money? I guess they just invent incrediblty complex and opaque corproate structures to move things about or something.
Even for some enthusiastic capitalists I can see the final paragraph striking a chord. Big global institutions, when they go wrong, seem to go really wrong.
British dependencies.
Makes me proud to be British.
If we can hold on to nothing else but our ability to wash dirty money and loot cultural artifacts, then that is still something.
And preserve slavers' statues from having baths, too. Edit: as opposed to dodgy money.
Perhaps we could combine the two? Protect statues of George Washington for cash?
Not aware that Mr Washington was a slaver, as opposed to Mr Jefferson?
Off topic (which I will read), but continuing to buzz in my bonnet
MEN voodoo poll, but a 📌 this big should stick. Should Transpennine Express be stripped of their franchise?:
Yes - 92% No - 6%
Who are the 6%?!
Edit - reminds me of the time the TES ran a voodoo poll on how much confidence teachers had in the DfE. In over 3000 responses, not a single one had complete confidence in the DfE. Only a handful (about 30) had even some confidence in it.
For the best part of a century, Switzerland’s financial USP was discretion, carefully protected by banking secrecy laws. Or, more bluntly, Swiss banks were where you hid your money, few questions asked. That ended as a result of US fury on discovering how UBS and others had helped US taxpayers evade tax. So the new USP became expertise: put your money in Switzerland not to hide it but because Swiss bankers know how to manage it well.
Shows how behand the times I am. Where do people now go to hide their money? I guess they just invent incrediblty complex and opaque corproate structures to move things about or something.
Even for some enthusiastic capitalists I can see the final paragraph striking a chord. Big global institutions, when they go wrong, seem to go really wrong.
British dependencies.
Makes me proud to be British.
If we can hold on to nothing else but our ability to wash dirty money and loot cultural artifacts, then that is still something.
And preserve slavers' statues from having baths, too.
The important stuff, exactly.
Oh yes, and dogs' names in histories of RAF heroism of the most self-sacrificial kind (somehow the most important bit of all, though I can't see why).
You could argue that 617 kept the concept of precision attack alive. Which in turn led to the Pathfinders, and to the Oboe Mosquito system.
There is also speculation this weekend that Johnson may be using his resignation honours list to reward those who have helped him through the inquiry – an allegation his team rejects as “completely untrue”. The Observer has been told that several figures who have featured in the inquiry also appeared in the draft version of Johnson’s honours list.
Well, he wants to give his father a knighthood for his championing of women’s’ rights.
Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think violence against women is funny.
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
For the best part of a century, Switzerland’s financial USP was discretion, carefully protected by banking secrecy laws. Or, more bluntly, Swiss banks were where you hid your money, few questions asked. That ended as a result of US fury on discovering how UBS and others had helped US taxpayers evade tax. So the new USP became expertise: put your money in Switzerland not to hide it but because Swiss bankers know how to manage it well.
Shows how behand the times I am. Where do people now go to hide their money? I guess they just invent incrediblty complex and opaque corproate structures to move things about or something.
Even for some enthusiastic capitalists I can see the final paragraph striking a chord. Big global institutions, when they go wrong, seem to go really wrong.
British dependencies.
Makes me proud to be British.
If we can hold on to nothing else but our ability to wash dirty money and loot cultural artifacts, then that is still something.
And preserve slavers' statues from having baths, too. Edit: as opposed to dodgy money.
Perhaps we could combine the two? Protect statues of George Washington for cash?
Not aware that Mr Washington was a slaver, as opposed to Mr Jefferson?
For the best part of a century, Switzerland’s financial USP was discretion, carefully protected by banking secrecy laws. Or, more bluntly, Swiss banks were where you hid your money, few questions asked. That ended as a result of US fury on discovering how UBS and others had helped US taxpayers evade tax. So the new USP became expertise: put your money in Switzerland not to hide it but because Swiss bankers know how to manage it well.
Shows how behand the times I am. Where do people now go to hide their money? I guess they just invent incrediblty complex and opaque corproate structures to move things about or something.
Even for some enthusiastic capitalists I can see the final paragraph striking a chord. Big global institutions, when they go wrong, seem to go really wrong.
British dependencies.
Makes me proud to be British.
If we can hold on to nothing else but our ability to wash dirty money and loot cultural artifacts, then that is still something.
And preserve slavers' statues from having baths, too.
The important stuff, exactly.
Oh yes, and dogs' names in histories of RAF heroism of the most self-sacrificial kind (somehow the most important bit of all, though I can't see why).
You could argue that 617 kept the concept of precision attack alive. Which in turn led to the Pathfinders, and to the Oboe Mosquito system.
Oh,. absolutely. And also the casualty rate from the Dams raid itself was ferocious.
For the best part of a century, Switzerland’s financial USP was discretion, carefully protected by banking secrecy laws. Or, more bluntly, Swiss banks were where you hid your money, few questions asked. That ended as a result of US fury on discovering how UBS and others had helped US taxpayers evade tax. So the new USP became expertise: put your money in Switzerland not to hide it but because Swiss bankers know how to manage it well.
Shows how behand the times I am. Where do people now go to hide their money? I guess they just invent incrediblty complex and opaque corproate structures to move things about or something.
Even for some enthusiastic capitalists I can see the final paragraph striking a chord. Big global institutions, when they go wrong, seem to go really wrong.
British dependencies.
Makes me proud to be British.
If we can hold on to nothing else but our ability to wash dirty money and loot cultural artifacts, then that is still something.
And preserve slavers' statues from having baths, too. Edit: as opposed to dodgy money.
Perhaps we could combine the two? Protect statues of George Washington for cash?
Not aware that Mr Washington was a slaver, as opposed to Mr Jefferson?
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
I know it’s a joke, but it points to one of the intractable cultural gulfs within British society. Those who care about our reputation abroad and those who don’t. Those who were embarrassed at our hooligans in the 80s and 90s and those who though they were funny.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
For the best part of a century, Switzerland’s financial USP was discretion, carefully protected by banking secrecy laws. Or, more bluntly, Swiss banks were where you hid your money, few questions asked. That ended as a result of US fury on discovering how UBS and others had helped US taxpayers evade tax. So the new USP became expertise: put your money in Switzerland not to hide it but because Swiss bankers know how to manage it well.
Shows how behand the times I am. Where do people now go to hide their money? I guess they just invent incrediblty complex and opaque corproate structures to move things about or something.
Even for some enthusiastic capitalists I can see the final paragraph striking a chord. Big global institutions, when they go wrong, seem to go really wrong.
British dependencies.
Makes me proud to be British.
If we can hold on to nothing else but our ability to wash dirty money and loot cultural artifacts, then that is still something.
And preserve slavers' statues from having baths, too. Edit: as opposed to dodgy money.
Perhaps we could combine the two? Protect statues of George Washington for cash?
Not aware that Mr Washington was a slaver, as opposed to Mr Jefferson?
For the best part of a century, Switzerland’s financial USP was discretion, carefully protected by banking secrecy laws. Or, more bluntly, Swiss banks were where you hid your money, few questions asked. That ended as a result of US fury on discovering how UBS and others had helped US taxpayers evade tax. So the new USP became expertise: put your money in Switzerland not to hide it but because Swiss bankers know how to manage it well.
Shows how behand the times I am. Where do people now go to hide their money? I guess they just invent incrediblty complex and opaque corproate structures to move things about or something.
Even for some enthusiastic capitalists I can see the final paragraph striking a chord. Big global institutions, when they go wrong, seem to go really wrong.
British dependencies.
Makes me proud to be British.
If we can hold on to nothing else but our ability to wash dirty money and loot cultural artifacts, then that is still something.
And preserve slavers' statues from having baths, too. Edit: as opposed to dodgy money.
Perhaps we could combine the two? Protect statues of George Washington for cash?
Not aware that Mr Washington was a slaver, as opposed to Mr Jefferson?
For the best part of a century, Switzerland’s financial USP was discretion, carefully protected by banking secrecy laws. Or, more bluntly, Swiss banks were where you hid your money, few questions asked. That ended as a result of US fury on discovering how UBS and others had helped US taxpayers evade tax. So the new USP became expertise: put your money in Switzerland not to hide it but because Swiss bankers know how to manage it well.
Shows how behand the times I am. Where do people now go to hide their money? I guess they just invent incrediblty complex and opaque corproate structures to move things about or something.
Even for some enthusiastic capitalists I can see the final paragraph striking a chord. Big global institutions, when they go wrong, seem to go really wrong.
British dependencies.
Makes me proud to be British.
If we can hold on to nothing else but our ability to wash dirty money and loot cultural artifacts, then that is still something.
And preserve slavers' statues from having baths, too. Edit: as opposed to dodgy money.
Perhaps we could combine the two? Protect statues of George Washington for cash?
Not aware that Mr Washington was a slaver, as opposed to Mr Jefferson?
There is also speculation this weekend that Johnson may be using his resignation honours list to reward those who have helped him through the inquiry – an allegation his team rejects as “completely untrue”. The Observer has been told that several figures who have featured in the inquiry also appeared in the draft version of Johnson’s honours list.
Well, he wants to give his father a knighthood for his championing of women’s’ rights.
Call me old-fashioned, but I don't think violence against women is funny.
For the best part of a century, Switzerland’s financial USP was discretion, carefully protected by banking secrecy laws. Or, more bluntly, Swiss banks were where you hid your money, few questions asked. That ended as a result of US fury on discovering how UBS and others had helped US taxpayers evade tax. So the new USP became expertise: put your money in Switzerland not to hide it but because Swiss bankers know how to manage it well.
Shows how behand the times I am. Where do people now go to hide their money? I guess they just invent incrediblty complex and opaque corproate structures to move things about or something.
Even for some enthusiastic capitalists I can see the final paragraph striking a chord. Big global institutions, when they go wrong, seem to go really wrong.
British dependencies.
Makes me proud to be British.
If we can hold on to nothing else but our ability to wash dirty money and loot cultural artifacts, then that is still something.
And preserve slavers' statues from having baths, too. Edit: as opposed to dodgy money.
Perhaps we could combine the two? Protect statues of George Washington for cash?
Not aware that Mr Washington was a slaver, as opposed to Mr Jefferson?
For the best part of a century, Switzerland’s financial USP was discretion, carefully protected by banking secrecy laws. Or, more bluntly, Swiss banks were where you hid your money, few questions asked. That ended as a result of US fury on discovering how UBS and others had helped US taxpayers evade tax. So the new USP became expertise: put your money in Switzerland not to hide it but because Swiss bankers know how to manage it well.
Shows how behand the times I am. Where do people now go to hide their money? I guess they just invent incrediblty complex and opaque corproate structures to move things about or something.
Even for some enthusiastic capitalists I can see the final paragraph striking a chord. Big global institutions, when they go wrong, seem to go really wrong.
British dependencies.
Makes me proud to be British.
If we can hold on to nothing else but our ability to wash dirty money and loot cultural artifacts, then that is still something.
And preserve slavers' statues from having baths, too. Edit: as opposed to dodgy money.
Perhaps we could combine the two? Protect statues of George Washington for cash?
Not aware that Mr Washington was a slaver, as opposed to Mr Jefferson?
For the best part of a century, Switzerland’s financial USP was discretion, carefully protected by banking secrecy laws. Or, more bluntly, Swiss banks were where you hid your money, few questions asked. That ended as a result of US fury on discovering how UBS and others had helped US taxpayers evade tax. So the new USP became expertise: put your money in Switzerland not to hide it but because Swiss bankers know how to manage it well.
Shows how behand the times I am. Where do people now go to hide their money? I guess they just invent incrediblty complex and opaque corproate structures to move things about or something.
Even for some enthusiastic capitalists I can see the final paragraph striking a chord. Big global institutions, when they go wrong, seem to go really wrong.
British dependencies.
Makes me proud to be British.
If we can hold on to nothing else but our ability to wash dirty money and loot cultural artifacts, then that is still something.
And preserve slavers' statues from having baths, too. Edit: as opposed to dodgy money.
Perhaps we could combine the two? Protect statues of George Washington for cash?
Not aware that Mr Washington was a slaver, as opposed to Mr Jefferson?
For the best part of a century, Switzerland’s financial USP was discretion, carefully protected by banking secrecy laws. Or, more bluntly, Swiss banks were where you hid your money, few questions asked. That ended as a result of US fury on discovering how UBS and others had helped US taxpayers evade tax. So the new USP became expertise: put your money in Switzerland not to hide it but because Swiss bankers know how to manage it well.
Shows how behand the times I am. Where do people now go to hide their money? I guess they just invent incrediblty complex and opaque corproate structures to move things about or something.
Even for some enthusiastic capitalists I can see the final paragraph striking a chord. Big global institutions, when they go wrong, seem to go really wrong.
British dependencies.
Makes me proud to be British.
If we can hold on to nothing else but our ability to wash dirty money and loot cultural artifacts, then that is still something.
And preserve slavers' statues from having baths, too. Edit: as opposed to dodgy money.
Perhaps we could combine the two? Protect statues of George Washington for cash?
Not aware that Mr Washington was a slaver, as opposed to Mr Jefferson?
And let me add a little detail to your discussion: In that wonderfully funny* book, "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight", Breslin describes the Mafia narcotics operations of a Brooklyn boss as depending on Swiss banks: "It takes large amounts of cash in small bills to pay for a shipment of heroin or cocaine which could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars. If Bacala feels a shipment is worth it, he sends Moe Fein on a plane to Lucerne, Switzerland, to withdraw the money from Bacala's numbered accounts. The accounts total over eleven million dollars. In Switzerland, Fein meets someone from the Corsican drug factory organization."
Money changes hands, narcotics soon flow through Montreal into New York, where they are sold on the street.
So, it wasn't just tax evaders who used Switzerland.
(* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gang_That_Couldn't_Shoot_Straight_(novel) Wonderfully funny if you don't mind a bunch of low-level gangsters getting killed. Or the odd result of the movie made, loosely, on the book. It made Joey Gallo, on whom the novel is based, a celebrity, which pleased him, in spite of the fact that the book depicts him as an incompetent thug.)
EXC: Senior execs at @Circ_Scotland, the firm in charge of Scotland’s under-fire deposit return scheme, are receiving £670,000 a year in salaries & fees, confidential documents leaked to @TheScotsman show. Its CEO, David Harris, has a salary of £300k. scotsman.com/business/depos…
Speaking of things which are cuckoo, whilst Youtube do what it likes it may be the first time I've thought Bridgen had a point in having a grievance. For one thing, the speech was probably a laugh riot of idiocy and many people are now denied that through the main platform. @YouTube have taken down the speech I gave in Parliament today. I am an elected member of the UK Parliament. The speech was given in the Chamber of the House of Commons and responded to by a Government Minister, what chance has anyone else got of putting their views on YouTube? https://twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1636824545330905117
They can read it in Hansard if they are that bothered. Letting a bunch of grifters make money on it is no bueno.
The speech has been reinstated on youtube now.
Like I said grifters want to make money out of it. Its a tricky one when someone is making such obviously dangerous and insincere comments. He is clearly a disgrace to himself let alone anyone else. Right down there with Piers Corbyn. I know people those folks led by the nose to an early grave and I don't have much sympathy for their whining. However, I don't think Bridgen is actually advocating violence or bloodshed (unlike many of his supporters) so it is probably best not to block his comments. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and wave them through
OK, pb brains trust: I'm in the midst of, for want of a better word, a loft conversion. Two new bedrooms and an office upstairs. I need to start thinking about lighting. Too many light fittings appear to be there to looked at, rather than to cast the room in an appealing light. The default is pendants, but they cast a horrible light. The secondary default is spots, which are fine, but don't enthuse me (and also aren't great for insulation). I'm thinking perhaps wall lights of some sort, but that's as far as I've got. Any experts (whether self-appointed or otherwise) on interior illumination here?
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
I know it’s a joke, but it points to one of the intractable cultural gulfs within British society. Those who care about our reputation abroad and those who don’t. Those who were embarrassed at our hooligans in the 80s and 90s and those who though they were funny.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
Actually it wasn't a joke and frankly who cares about the UK's reputation abroad.
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
I know it’s a joke, but it points to one of the intractable cultural gulfs within British society. Those who care about our reputation abroad and those who don’t. Those who were embarrassed at our hooligans in the 80s and 90s and those who though they were funny.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
Actually it wasn't a joke and frankly who cares about the UK's reputation abroad.
OK, pb brains trust: I'm in the midst of, for want of a better word, a loft conversion. Two new bedrooms and an office upstairs. I need to start thinking about lighting. Too many light fittings appear to be there to looked at, rather than to cast the room in an appealing light. The default is pendants, but they cast a horrible light. The secondary default is spots, which are fine, but don't enthuse me (and also aren't great for insulation). I'm thinking perhaps wall lights of some sort, but that's as far as I've got. Any experts (whether self-appointed or otherwise) on interior illumination here?
Uplighters do give rather more subtle lighting, though probably want something stronger over the desk.
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
I know it’s a joke, but it points to one of the intractable cultural gulfs within British society. Those who care about our reputation abroad and those who don’t. Those who were embarrassed at our hooligans in the 80s and 90s and those who though they were funny.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
Actually it wasn't a joke and frankly who cares about the UK's reputation abroad.
I do
Why? China has a bad rep, same with russia, the us, how the fuck does it effect you.
The EU sends migrants to slave labour factories in LIbya they dont seem to care about rep
If we get a rep for summarily executing illegals (even though we actually arent) and illegals stop coming well thats one in the plus column as far as I can see.
OK, pb brains trust: I'm in the midst of, for want of a better word, a loft conversion. Two new bedrooms and an office upstairs. I need to start thinking about lighting. Too many light fittings appear to be there to looked at, rather than to cast the room in an appealing light. The default is pendants, but they cast a horrible light. The secondary default is spots, which are fine, but don't enthuse me (and also aren't great for insulation). I'm thinking perhaps wall lights of some sort, but that's as far as I've got. Any experts (whether self-appointed or otherwise) on interior illumination here?
Not an expert but we have gone for extensive use of wall-lights which direct the light up to the ceiling in out last couple of houses. That way you get a well-lit room without the glare of direct lights.
Speaking of things which are cuckoo, whilst Youtube do what it likes it may be the first time I've thought Bridgen had a point in having a grievance. For one thing, the speech was probably a laugh riot of idiocy and many people are now denied that through the main platform. @YouTube have taken down the speech I gave in Parliament today. I am an elected member of the UK Parliament. The speech was given in the Chamber of the House of Commons and responded to by a Government Minister, what chance has anyone else got of putting their views on YouTube? https://twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1636824545330905117
They can read it in Hansard if they are that bothered. Letting a bunch of grifters make money on it is no bueno.
The speech has been reinstated on youtube now.
Like I said grifters want to make money out of it. Its a tricky one when someone is making such obviously dangerous and insincere comments. He is clearly a disgrace to himself let alone anyone else. Right down there with Piers Corbyn. I know people those folks led by the nose to an early grave and I don't have much sympathy for their whining. However, I don't think Bridgen is actually advocating violence or bloodshed (unlike many of his supporters) so it is probably best not to block his comments. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and wave them through
Mind you there is this from Bridgen
I can confirm that during my visit to Washington DC last Christmas/ New Year I was informed that the US DoD were responsible for both the virus and the vaccines. Fort Detrick was named. Also a facility in Canada. (1/2)
10:19 AM · Mar 12, 2023
·
1.4M
Views
By the end of the month I expect to see the start of criminal proceedings against the many politicians and officials who are responsible around the world. (2/2)
How dare YouTube block a speech made by an elected member of the House of Commons in the chamber of the house, regardless of whether or not what he was saying was nonsense.
How dare YouTube block a speech made by an elected member of the House of Commons in the chamber of the house, regardless of whether or not what he was saying was nonsense.
Its a private company they can choose what they allow on their site. How dare Bridgen demand he is shown in all his ignominy or any other fuckwit like him
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
I know it’s a joke, but it points to one of the intractable cultural gulfs within British society. Those who care about our reputation abroad and those who don’t. Those who were embarrassed at our hooligans in the 80s and 90s and those who though they were funny.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
Actually it wasn't a joke and frankly who cares about the UK's reputation abroad.
I do
Why? China has a bad rep, same with russia, the us, how the fuck does it effect you.
The EU sends migrants to slave labour factories in LIbya they dont seem to care about rep
If we get a rep for summarily executing illegals (even though we actually arent) and illegals stop coming well thats one in the plus column as far as I can see.
Whether it directly affects me is neither here nor there. I care about the reputation of the country because I still believe we can be an influence for good in the world.
The idea of summarily executing anybody is totally abhorrent to me. Pretending to do so is both abhorrent and frankly ridiculous - if it were to be believed (it wouldn't) we'd be a pariah state; since it would be seen through very easily we'd just look totally stupid.
OK, pb brains trust: I'm in the midst of, for want of a better word, a loft conversion. Two new bedrooms and an office upstairs. I need to start thinking about lighting. Too many light fittings appear to be there to looked at, rather than to cast the room in an appealing light. The default is pendants, but they cast a horrible light. The secondary default is spots, which are fine, but don't enthuse me (and also aren't great for insulation). I'm thinking perhaps wall lights of some sort, but that's as far as I've got. Any experts (whether self-appointed or otherwise) on interior illumination here?
Not an expert but we have gone for extensive use of wall-lights which direct the light up to the ceiling in out last couple of houses. That way you get a well-lit room without the glare of direct lights.
My only bit of expertise on this is one sentence gleaned second hand from someone who IS an expert in interior lighting, reported by an architect: that the way you perceive the light in a room is by the light on the walls. Uplighters (or up and down lighters, if such a thing exists) would probably do the trick here. And like Foxy says, something rather brighter where there is a desk.
How dare YouTube block a speech made by an elected member of the House of Commons in the chamber of the house, regardless of whether or not what he was saying was nonsense.
Its a private company they can choose what they allow on their site. How dare Bridgen demand he is shown in all his ignominy or any other fuckwit like him
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
I know it’s a joke, but it points to one of the intractable cultural gulfs within British society. Those who care about our reputation abroad and those who don’t. Those who were embarrassed at our hooligans in the 80s and 90s and those who though they were funny.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
Actually it wasn't a joke and frankly who cares about the UK's reputation abroad.
I do
Why? China has a bad rep, same with russia, the us, how the fuck does it effect you.
The EU sends migrants to slave labour factories in LIbya they dont seem to care about rep
If we get a rep for summarily executing illegals (even though we actually arent) and illegals stop coming well thats one in the plus column as far as I can see.
Whether it directly affects me is neither here nor there. I care about the reputation of the country because I still believe we can be an influence for good in the world.
The idea of summarily executing anybody is totally abhorrent to me. Pretending to do so is both abhorrent and frankly ridiculous - if it were to be believed (it wouldn't) we'd be a pariah state; since it would be seen through very easily we'd just look totally stupid.
Have you been drinking?
The point was we weren't summarily executing people, we were giving ourselves the rep for it. Personally if it saves lives because illegals stop drowning because they stop crossing in small boats because they fear a bullet in the back of the head if they land then yes reputation can go hang if it saves even 1 life. Its about as valuable a whores used knickers
If reputation is more important then you are hyacinth bucket and I claim my 5 pounds
Speaking of things which are cuckoo, whilst Youtube do what it likes it may be the first time I've thought Bridgen had a point in having a grievance. For one thing, the speech was probably a laugh riot of idiocy and many people are now denied that through the main platform. @YouTube have taken down the speech I gave in Parliament today. I am an elected member of the UK Parliament. The speech was given in the Chamber of the House of Commons and responded to by a Government Minister, what chance has anyone else got of putting their views on YouTube? https://twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1636824545330905117
They can read it in Hansard if they are that bothered. Letting a bunch of grifters make money on it is no bueno.
The speech has been reinstated on youtube now.
Like I said grifters want to make money out of it. Its a tricky one when someone is making such obviously dangerous and insincere comments. He is clearly a disgrace to himself let alone anyone else. Right down there with Piers Corbyn. I know people those folks led by the nose to an early grave and I don't have much sympathy for their whining. However, I don't think Bridgen is actually advocating violence or bloodshed (unlike many of his supporters) so it is probably best not to block his comments. Sometimes you just have to hold your nose and wave them through
Mind you there is this from Bridgen
I can confirm that during my visit to Washington DC last Christmas/ New Year I was informed that the US DoD were responsible for both the virus and the vaccines. Fort Detrick was named. Also a facility in Canada. (1/2)
10:19 AM · Mar 12, 2023
·
1.4M
Views
By the end of the month I expect to see the start of criminal proceedings against the many politicians and officials who are responsible around the world. (2/2)
FFS. ‘Informed’ by whom? There are a ton of fuckwits out there who believe any old shit, rather than the truth about vaccines. No question, some people were injured and some died as a result of the covid vaccination. But vastly more lives were saved. If you don’t agree please show your evidence, and not just twitter posts.
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
I know it’s a joke, but it points to one of the intractable cultural gulfs within British society. Those who care about our reputation abroad and those who don’t. Those who were embarrassed at our hooligans in the 80s and 90s and those who though they were funny.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
Actually it wasn't a joke and frankly who cares about the UK's reputation abroad.
I do
Why? China has a bad rep, same with russia, the us, how the fuck does it effect you.
The EU sends migrants to slave labour factories in LIbya they dont seem to care about rep
If we get a rep for summarily executing illegals (even though we actually arent) and illegals stop coming well thats one in the plus column as far as I can see.
You've highlighted the hard-nosed reason national reputation matters.
Russia struggles to sell stuff abroad because almost everyone hates the Russian government. (Sorry, trollskis, but it's true.)
The lack of trust people have in the Chinese government has a similar effect; the world buys lots of Chinese stuff because it's cheap, and their attempts to move into higher-value stuff (say electronics) look like being hampered by the poor rep the Chinese state has.
Now you can sell anything if it's cheap enough, sure. But that feeds back into the fundamentally rubbish lives workers in those countries have. Similarly, the broadly positive view the world has of the British- that we're basically decent and honest and law-abiding makes the UK a place where people are willing to do business and we all profit from that.
OK, pb brains trust: I'm in the midst of, for want of a better word, a loft conversion. Two new bedrooms and an office upstairs. I need to start thinking about lighting. Too many light fittings appear to be there to looked at, rather than to cast the room in an appealing light. The default is pendants, but they cast a horrible light. The secondary default is spots, which are fine, but don't enthuse me (and also aren't great for insulation). I'm thinking perhaps wall lights of some sort, but that's as far as I've got. Any experts (whether self-appointed or otherwise) on interior illumination here?
Not an expert but we have gone for extensive use of wall-lights which direct the light up to the ceiling in out last couple of houses. That way you get a well-lit room without the glare of direct lights.
Ben - when you say 'extensive' - would you use in a bedroom, and if so how many in a large-ish double bedroom?
OK, pb brains trust: I'm in the midst of, for want of a better word, a loft conversion. Two new bedrooms and an office upstairs. I need to start thinking about lighting. Too many light fittings appear to be there to looked at, rather than to cast the room in an appealing light. The default is pendants, but they cast a horrible light. The secondary default is spots, which are fine, but don't enthuse me (and also aren't great for insulation). I'm thinking perhaps wall lights of some sort, but that's as far as I've got. Any experts (whether self-appointed or otherwise) on interior illumination here?
As others have said, uplighters are nice.
An office in the eaves in summer, especially if you have computers and printers in it that get warm, might benefit from one of these though
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
I know it’s a joke, but it points to one of the intractable cultural gulfs within British society. Those who care about our reputation abroad and those who don’t. Those who were embarrassed at our hooligans in the 80s and 90s and those who though they were funny.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
Actually it wasn't a joke and frankly who cares about the UK's reputation abroad.
I do
Why? China has a bad rep, same with russia, the us, how the fuck does it effect you.
The EU sends migrants to slave labour factories in LIbya they dont seem to care about rep
If we get a rep for summarily executing illegals (even though we actually arent) and illegals stop coming well thats one in the plus column as far as I can see.
Whether it directly affects me is neither here nor there. I care about the reputation of the country because I still believe we can be an influence for good in the world.
The idea of summarily executing anybody is totally abhorrent to me. Pretending to do so is both abhorrent and frankly ridiculous - if it were to be believed (it wouldn't) we'd be a pariah state; since it would be seen through very easily we'd just look totally stupid.
Have you been drinking?
The point was we weren't summarily executing people, we were giving ourselves the rep for it. Personally if it saves lives because illegals stop drowning because they stop cr
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
I know it’s a joke, but it points to one of the intractable cultural gulfs within British society. Those who care about our reputation abroad and those who don’t. Those who were embarrassed at our hooligans in the 80s and 90s and those who though they were funny.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
Actually it wasn't a joke and frankly who cares about the UK's reputation abroad.
I do
Why? China has a bad rep, same with russia, the us, how the fuck does it effect you.
The EU sends migrants to slave labour factories in LIbya they dont seem to care about rep
If we get a rep for summarily executing illegals (even though we actually arent) and illegals stop coming well thats one in the plus column as far as I can see.
You've highlighted the hard-nosed reason national reputation matters.
Russia struggles to sell stuff abroad because almost everyone hates the Russian government. (Sorry, trollskis, but it's true.)
The lack of trust people have in the Chinese government has a similar effect; the world buys lots of Chinese stuff because it's cheap, and their attempts to move into higher-value stuff (say electronics) look like being hampered by the poor rep the Chinese state has.
Now you can sell anything if it's cheap enough, sure. But that feeds back into the fundamentally rubbish lives workers in those countries have. Similarly, the broadly positive view the world has of the British- that we're basically decent and honest and law-abiding makes the UK a place where people are willing to do business and we all profit from that.
People like you are always saying though we don't produce any goods people want so no harm then
OK, pb brains trust: I'm in the midst of, for want of a better word, a loft conversion. Two new bedrooms and an office upstairs. I need to start thinking about lighting. Too many light fittings appear to be there to looked at, rather than to cast the room in an appealing light. The default is pendants, but they cast a horrible light. The secondary default is spots, which are fine, but don't enthuse me (and also aren't great for insulation). I'm thinking perhaps wall lights of some sort, but that's as far as I've got. Any experts (whether self-appointed or otherwise) on interior illumination here?
Uplighters do give rather more subtle lighting, though probably want something stronger over the desk.
That's true. We managed to get one of these Artemide Tizio 35's some years ago in a clearance sale for a snip, it's excellent but pricy when undiscounted.
How dare YouTube block a speech made by an elected member of the House of Commons in the chamber of the house, regardless of whether or not what he was saying was nonsense.
Right to free speech does not mean right to a platform.
OK, pb brains trust: I'm in the midst of, for want of a better word, a loft conversion. Two new bedrooms and an office upstairs. I need to start thinking about lighting. Too many light fittings appear to be there to looked at, rather than to cast the room in an appealing light. The default is pendants, but they cast a horrible light. The secondary default is spots, which are fine, but don't enthuse me (and also aren't great for insulation). I'm thinking perhaps wall lights of some sort, but that's as far as I've got. Any experts (whether self-appointed or otherwise) on interior illumination here?
Not an expert but we have gone for extensive use of wall-lights which direct the light up to the ceiling in out last couple of houses. That way you get a well-lit room without the glare of direct lights.
My only bit of expertise on this is one sentence gleaned second hand from someone who IS an expert in interior lighting, reported by an architect: that the way you perceive the light in a room is by the light on the walls. Uplighters (or up and down lighters, if such a thing exists) would probably do the trick here.
They do. I have them in my sunroom.
Look for exterior lights as they offer that feature.
How dare YouTube block a speech made by an elected member of the House of Commons in the chamber of the house, regardless of whether or not what he was saying was nonsense.
Right to free speech does not mean right to a platform.
I think it does if he said it in the House if Commons.
Tottenham always choke at critical moments. 3 -1 up away from home, ...to only draw is appalling. Always chose the other team in critical fixtures involving Spurs....its paid off in the past....no reason why not in the future....
How dare YouTube block a speech made by an elected member of the House of Commons in the chamber of the house, regardless of whether or not what he was saying was nonsense.
Right to free speech does not mean right to a platform.
I think it does if he said it in the House if Commons.
How dare YouTube block a speech made by an elected member of the House of Commons in the chamber of the house, regardless of whether or not what he was saying was nonsense.
Right to free speech does not mean right to a platform.
I think it does if he said it in the House if Commons.
It’ll be in that massively read journal of record, Hansard… That’s as far as I’d like to see it. He is so far down the rabbit hole only his feet are showing. I wonder if he tries to ask scientists who disagree with what he is propounding (most of them). Almost certainly not.
How dare YouTube block a speech made by an elected member of the House of Commons in the chamber of the house, regardless of whether or not what he was saying was nonsense.
Right to free speech does not mean right to a platform.
I think it does if he said it in the House if Commons.
OK, pb brains trust: I'm in the midst of, for want of a better word, a loft conversion. Two new bedrooms and an office upstairs. I need to start thinking about lighting. Too many light fittings appear to be there to looked at, rather than to cast the room in an appealing light. The default is pendants, but they cast a horrible light. The secondary default is spots, which are fine, but don't enthuse me (and also aren't great for insulation). I'm thinking perhaps wall lights of some sort, but that's as far as I've got. Any experts (whether self-appointed or otherwise) on interior illumination here?
Not an expert but we have gone for extensive use of wall-lights which direct the light up to the ceiling in out last couple of houses. That way you get a well-lit room without the glare of direct lights.
Ben - when you say 'extensive' - would you use in a bedroom, and if so how many in a large-ish double bedroom?
Yes we have one each side of the bed in our bedroom, separately switched. They are up and down lighters - the downlight is useful for reading, the uplight gives a nice soft light in the whole room. (We do get a bit of a glare off the ceiling mirror over the bed but hey-ho*.)
We also have some ceiling-hung spots to shine into the wardrobe - useful on dark mornings when you're trying to fine the right colour shirt etc. but we use those only occasionally.
As I recall, Credit Suisse hired an American Chief Risk Officer, who had no risk experience and was tasked with finding "business opportunities". That worked as well you would expect.
I suspect UBS might be interested in Credit Suisse's private banking business - the clients and relationship managers - but not the organisation, and certainly not the investment bank.
EFC 2-1 to be relegated. 10 games to play. Fewer than most of our rivals. 6 against the top 9. Of the other 4 only 1 is at home. Bournemouth on the final day. I reckon that is value.
Presumably that bell-end Bridgen will not be reselected as the Tory candidate for North West Leicestershire since he does not have the Troy whip (even though he's still a member of the Conservative party)?
OK, pb brains trust: I'm in the midst of, for want of a better word, a loft conversion. Two new bedrooms and an office upstairs. I need to start thinking about lighting. Too many light fittings appear to be there to looked at, rather than to cast the room in an appealing light. The default is pendants, but they cast a horrible light. The secondary default is spots, which are fine, but don't enthuse me (and also aren't great for insulation). I'm thinking perhaps wall lights of some sort, but that's as far as I've got. Any experts (whether self-appointed or otherwise) on interior illumination here?
Uplighters do give rather more subtle lighting, though probably want something stronger over the desk.
That's true. We managed to get one of these Artemide Tizio 35's some years ago in a clearance sale for a snip, it's excellent but pricy when undiscounted.
EFC 2-1 to be relegated. 10 games to play. Fewer than most of our rivals. 6 against the top 9. Of the other 4 only 1 is at home. Bournemouth on the final day. I reckon that is value.
5.2 for Leicester to go down looks value to me (though I got on at longer odds). We are 17th and playing poorly, with a manager whose teams always fade at the end of a season.
Yes, we equalised today, but it was our only shot on target of the game.
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
I know it’s a joke, but it points to one of the intractable cultural gulfs within British society. Those who care about our reputation abroad and those who don’t. Those who were embarrassed at our hooligans in the 80s and 90s and those who though they were funny.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
Actually it wasn't a joke and frankly who cares about the UK's reputation abroad.
I do
Why? China has a bad rep, same with russia, the us, how the fuck does it effect you.
The EU sends migrants to slave labour factories in LIbya they dont seem to care about rep
If we get a rep for summarily executing illegals (even though we actually arent) and illegals stop coming well thats one in the plus column as far as I can see.
Whether it directly affects me is neither here nor there. I care about the reputation of the country because I still believe we can be an influence for good in the world.
The idea of summarily executing anybody is totally abhorrent to me. Pretending to do so is both abhorrent and frankly ridiculous - if it were to be believed (it wouldn't) we'd be a pariah state; since it would be seen through very easily we'd just look totally stupid.
Have you been drinking?
The point was we weren't summarily executing people, we were giving ourselves the rep for it. Personally if it saves lives because illegals stop drowning because they stop cr
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
I know it’s a joke, but it points to one of the intractable cultural gulfs within British society. Those who care about our reputation abroad and those who don’t. Those who were embarrassed at our hooligans in the 80s and 90s and those who though they were funny.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
Actually it wasn't a joke and frankly who cares about the UK's reputation abroad.
I do
Why? China has a bad rep, same with russia, the us, how the fuck does it effect you.
The EU sends migrants to slave labour factories in LIbya they dont seem to care about rep
If we get a rep for summarily executing illegals (even though we actually arent) and illegals stop coming well thats one in the plus column as far as I can see.
You've highlighted the hard-nosed reason national reputation matters.
Russia struggles to sell stuff abroad because almost everyone hates the Russian government. (Sorry, trollskis, but it's true.)
The lack of trust people have in the Chinese government has a similar effect; the world buys lots of Chinese stuff because it's cheap, and their attempts to move into higher-value stuff (say electronics) look like being hampered by the poor rep the Chinese state has.
Now you can sell anything if it's cheap enough, sure. But that feeds back into the fundamentally rubbish lives workers in those countries have. Similarly, the broadly positive view the world has of the British- that we're basically decent and honest and law-abiding makes the UK a place where people are willing to do business and we all profit from that.
People like you are always saying though we don't produce any goods people want so no harm then
This is an interesting discussion. I think I’m on to something here. You really don’t care how we are seen abroad, and I think there are many people who think like you. Millions perhaps.
I do. Why? Not for hard nosed reasons. Probably somewhere deep down in my inner psyche. Something imbued in me by my parents. Wanting to be liked. Seen as an all round good egg. Not wanting to cause unnecessary offence. Some prefer to be liked than feared. Others, the reverse.
It’s perhaps one of those horseshoe theories which explain why the Etonians and the Red wall get along so unaccountably well together. A contentment with being feared and respected, rather than liked. Something shared by many Russians, US Republicans and - unlike his centrist brethren - Emmanuel Macron.
EFC 2-1 to be relegated. 10 games to play. Fewer than most of our rivals. 6 against the top 9. Of the other 4 only 1 is at home. Bournemouth on the final day. I reckon that is value.
5.2 for Leicester to go down looks value to me (though I got on at longer odds). We are 17th and playing poorly, with a manager whose teams always fade at the end of a season.
Yes, we equalised today, but it was our only shot on target of the game.
I wonder about Palace? They don't seem to be getting any points at all. It is desperately close between the bottom 9.
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
I know it’s a joke, but it points to one of the intractable cultural gulfs within British society. Those who care about our reputation abroad and those who don’t. Those who were embarrassed at our hooligans in the 80s and 90s and those who though they were funny.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
Actually it wasn't a joke and frankly who cares about the UK's reputation abroad.
I do
Why? China has a bad rep, same with russia, the us, how the fuck does it effect you.
The EU sends migrants to slave labour factories in LIbya they dont seem to care about rep
If we get a rep for summarily executing illegals (even though we actually arent) and illegals stop coming well thats one in the plus column as far as I can see.
Whether it directly affects me is neither here nor there. I care about the reputation of the country because I still believe we can be an influence for good in the world.
The idea of summarily executing anybody is totally abhorrent to me. Pretending to do so is both abhorrent and frankly ridiculous - if it were to be believed (it wouldn't) we'd be a pariah state; since it would be seen through very easily we'd just look totally stupid.
Have you been drinking?
The point was we weren't summarily executing people, we were giving ourselves the rep for it. Personally if it saves lives because illegals stop drowning because they stop cr
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
I suppose the permanent detention of tens of thousands in hotels, without hearing cases or allowing them to work might be a recipie for trouble.
Next 5000 illegals from boats offer them british citizenship fasttracked if the sign an NDA which means they will lose that citizenship and be deported if they help make youtube videos of border services executing them on the spot....push the video's on youtube and if countries complain just shrug.....immigrants will see them and stop coming
I know it’s a joke, but it points to one of the intractable cultural gulfs within British society. Those who care about our reputation abroad and those who don’t. Those who were embarrassed at our hooligans in the 80s and 90s and those who though they were funny.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
Actually it wasn't a joke and frankly who cares about the UK's reputation abroad.
I do
Why? China has a bad rep, same with russia, the us, how the fuck does it effect you.
The EU sends migrants to slave labour factories in LIbya they dont seem to care about rep
If we get a rep for summarily executing illegals (even though we actually arent) and illegals stop coming well thats one in the plus column as far as I can see.
You've highlighted the hard-nosed reason national reputation matters.
Russia struggles to sell stuff abroad because almost everyone hates the Russian government. (Sorry, trollskis, but it's true.)
The lack of trust people have in the Chinese government has a similar effect; the world buys lots of Chinese stuff because it's cheap, and their attempts to move into higher-value stuff (say electronics) look like being hampered by the poor rep the Chinese state has.
Now you can sell anything if it's cheap enough, sure. But that feeds back into the fundamentally rubbish lives workers in those countries have. Similarly, the broadly positive view the world has of the British- that we're basically decent and honest and law-abiding makes the UK a place where people are willing to do business and we all profit from that.
People like you are always saying though we don't produce any goods people want so no harm then
This is an interesting discussion. I think I’m on to something here. You really don’t care how we are seen abroad, and I think there are many people who think like you. Millions perhaps.
I do. Why? Not for hard nosed reasons. Probably somewhere deep down in my inner psyche. Something imbued in me by my parents. Wanting to be liked. Seen as an all round good egg. Not wanting to cause unnecessary offence. Some prefer to be liked than feared. Others, the reverse.
It’s perhaps one of those horseshoe theories which explain why the Etonians and the Red wall get along so unaccountably well together. A contentment with being feared and respected, rather than liked. Something shared by many Russians, US Republicans and - unlike his centrist brethren - Emmanuel Macron.
I think the danger is when people overreact to things. They see a comedy show in Germany making fun of the UK over Boris and flip their shit over it, that sort of thing.
I want the UK to be positively thought of. But I think absent truly extreme Trumpian cases the reputation of a country and its citizens doesn't shift all that much, and certainly does not have the diplomatic effect some people think it does - deals get struck with dictators and authoritarian regimes all the time, if you avoid Putinesque exploits people's views might fluctuate a bit but any significant change, say on seeing your country as more prosperous, more liberal etc, will take many many years.
EFC 2-1 to be relegated. 10 games to play. Fewer than most of our rivals. 6 against the top 9. Of the other 4 only 1 is at home. Bournemouth on the final day. I reckon that is value.
5.2 for Leicester to go down looks value to me (though I got on at longer odds). We are 17th and playing poorly, with a manager whose teams always fade at the end of a season.
Yes, we equalised today, but it was our only shot on target of the game.
I wonder about Palace? They don't seem to be getting any points at all. It is desperately close between the bottom 9.
Our next game is away at Palace, so should fix that for them!
Any of the bottom 9 could go down.
Our last match is West Ham at home. It could come down to that.
Groucho Marx said he wouldn't want to join any club that would have him as a member. Why would UBS want to buy Credit Suisse? What is in it for them? One thinks back to Victor Blank and Lloyds deciding to buy HBOS without doing due diligence. Surely the most calamitous acquisition in British corporate history.
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
There isn't any logic to it. The 23% are people who detest the policy, and replying in this way is their way of expressing it.
Similar vibes with the people saying the budget this week would make them worse off. There were no tax or spending announcements that would make any significant group of people worse off. It was a budget of fiscal loosening. But a portion of people would always say the worst possible thing about a government they hate.
(Not to say I thought the budget was great by the way, It was, in my appraisal, not screamingly bad).
How dare YouTube block a speech made by an elected member of the House of Commons in the chamber of the house, regardless of whether or not what he was saying was nonsense.
Right to free speech does not mean right to a platform.
I think it does if he said it in the House if Commons.
Not so - should tiktok be forced to host House of Commons debates for example? Itunes putting up podcasts of it?
I think the decision was a stupid one, even though Bridgen is a deeply stupid man based on his words and actions, but Parliament makes footage available and he provided another way of accessing it. The power of a big company to control the debate because of the dominance of their platforms is something to be concerned about, but if they are not required to provide something, how can they be forced to do so?
Left-wing writer Nick Cohen decides that wokeism does in fact exist.
"Nick Cohen @NickCohen4 "The wokeism that dare not speak its name" Long read from me on how, despite all the claims to the contrary, a distinct progressive ideology came out of the US and why its illiberalism will undermine it."
"Two ideas can be true simultaneously. A new and distinct “woke” ideology developed after 2010 in American academia, and boorish right-wingers use “woke” to mean “whatever I don’t like”.
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
There isn't any logic to it. The 23% are people who detest the policy, and replying in this way is their way of expressing it.
Similar vibes with the people saying the budget this week would make them worse off. There were no tax or spending announcements that would make any significant group of people worse off. It was a budget of fiscal loosening. But a portion of people would always say the worst possible thing about a government they hate.
(Not to say I thought the budget was great by the way, It was, in my appraisal, not screamingly bad).
I think most people will be worse off from Hunts budget due to fiscal drag, but probably haven't spotted that yet.
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
There isn't any logic to it. The 23% are people who detest the policy, and replying in this way is their way of expressing it.
Similar vibes with the people saying the budget this week would make them worse off. There were no tax or spending announcements that would make any significant group of people worse off. It was a budget of fiscal loosening. But a portion of people would always say the worst possible thing about a government they hate.
(Not to say I thought the budget was great by the way, It was, in my appraisal, not screamingly bad).
It's certainly made me worse off. Fiscal drag. That it wasn't mentioned in the Budget doesn't change that. Plus. Constant below inflation pay offers make me worse off. They aren't expressed either. Still makes me worse off.
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
There isn't any logic to it. The 23% are people who detest the policy, and replying in this way is their way of expressing it.
Similar vibes with the people saying the budget this week would make them worse off. There were no tax or spending announcements that would make any significant group of people worse off. It was a budget of fiscal loosening. But a portion of people would always say the worst possible thing about a government they hate.
(Not to say I thought the budget was great by the way, It was, in my appraisal, not screamingly bad).
It's certainly made me worse off. Fiscal drag. That it wasn't mentioned in the Budget doesn't change that.
EFC 2-1 to be relegated. 10 games to play. Fewer than most of our rivals. 6 against the top 9. Of the other 4 only 1 is at home. Bournemouth on the final day. I reckon that is value.
5.2 for Leicester to go down looks value to me (though I got on at longer odds). We are 17th and playing poorly, with a manager whose teams always fade at the end of a season.
Yes, we equalised today, but it was our only shot on target of the game.
I wonder about Palace? They don't seem to be getting any points at all. It is desperately close between the bottom 9.
I'm officially worried about the Hammers' chances this season
Anyone in more important news, Gary Lineker is back on Match Of The Day.
Looking forward to all the expert analysis on how he did after his period on the sidelines. A little rusty, short of match practice? Like he'd never been away?
The SNP look to be in as bad as if not worse state than Labour were at their lowest point under the Absolute Boy. If SLAB can't win at least 20 seats at the next election at this point then they're a bit shit.
Anyone in more important news, Gary Lineker is back on Match Of The Day.
Looking forward to all the expert analysis on how he did after his period on the sidelines. A little rusty, short of match practice? Like he'd never been away?
Who are the Tories “focus grouping”. Unless they’ve given up and trying to shore up their core vote. Extremely core
Intrigued by the 23% who think the Braverman plan will make the boat situation worse. I'm not sure they're wrong, but I'm intrigued at the logic.
There isn't any logic to it. The 23% are people who detest the policy, and replying in this way is their way of expressing it.
Similar vibes with the people saying the budget this week would make them worse off. There were no tax or spending announcements that would make any significant group of people worse off. It was a budget of fiscal loosening. But a portion of people would always say the worst possible thing about a government they hate.
(Not to say I thought the budget was great by the way, It was, in my appraisal, not screamingly bad).
It's certainly made me worse off. Fiscal drag. That it wasn't mentioned in the Budget doesn't change that. Plus. Constant below inflation pay offers make me worse off. They aren't expressed either. Still makes me worse off.
Fiscal drag should mean an answer of “the same”. It would happen if we didn’t have any budgets.
OK, pb brains trust: I'm in the midst of, for want of a better word, a loft conversion. Two new bedrooms and an office upstairs. I need to start thinking about lighting. Too many light fittings appear to be there to looked at, rather than to cast the room in an appealing light. The default is pendants, but they cast a horrible light. The secondary default is spots, which are fine, but don't enthuse me (and also aren't great for insulation). I'm thinking perhaps wall lights of some sort, but that's as far as I've got. Any experts (whether self-appointed or otherwise) on interior illumination here?
Uplighters do give rather more subtle lighting, though probably want something stronger over the desk.
That's true. We managed to get one of these Artemide Tizio 35's some years ago in a clearance sale for a snip, it's excellent but pricy when undiscounted.
That has sat on our big table since 1980.
Blimey, I didn't realise they had been around for so long. Still looks bang up to date to me.
We enjoy spotting them on the TV - usually in dramas, used to denote sophisticated good taste.
Anyone in more important news, Gary Lineker is back on Match Of The Day.
Looking forward to all the expert analysis on how he did after his period on the sidelines. A little rusty, short of match practice? Like he'd never been away?
Not him tonight, Mark Chapman tonight.
So much worse tonight than with Gary, said literally no one.
I was charmed by Gillian Sturgeon's "cast assumptions with no evidence", and spent more time than I should have trying to figure out what she meant. Perhaps "cast aspersions"?
(I can think of how one might -- and sometimes should -- cast away assumptions, as one sometimes should, but just casting them?)
Groucho Marx said he wouldn't want to join any club that would have him as a member. Why would UBS want to buy Credit Suisse? What is in it for them? One thinks back to Victor Blank and Lloyds deciding to buy HBOS without doing due diligence. Surely the most calamitous acquisition in British corporate history.
Buy the wreckage cheap. Tear it down for parts. Junk the rest….
Comments
So it doesn't look as if the legislation introduced earlier this month is having much of a deterrent impact yet, especially given the intention to apply the legislation retrospectively from 7/3 once it has gone through Parliament.
I find mountains very funny, do you know why? Because they are hill-areas.
Not a value judgment. There are merits to be argued for both positions. But nevertheless a real cleavage.
A lot of the 2016 vote and subsequent commons battles within both major parties can probably be traced back to this divide.
And let me add a little detail to your discussion: In that wonderfully funny* book, "The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight", Breslin describes the Mafia narcotics operations of a Brooklyn boss as depending on Swiss banks:
"It takes large amounts of cash in small bills to pay for a shipment of heroin or cocaine which could earn hundreds of thousands of dollars. If Bacala feels a shipment is worth it, he sends Moe Fein on a plane to Lucerne, Switzerland, to withdraw the money from Bacala's numbered accounts. The accounts total over eleven million dollars. In Switzerland, Fein meets someone from the Corsican drug factory organization."
Money changes hands, narcotics soon flow through Montreal into New York, where they are sold on the street.
So, it wasn't just tax evaders who used Switzerland.
(* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gang_That_Couldn't_Shoot_Straight_(novel)
Wonderfully funny if you don't mind a bunch of low-level gangsters getting killed. Or the odd result of the movie made, loosely, on the book. It made Joey Gallo, on whom the novel is based, a celebrity, which pleased him, in spite of the fact that the book depicts him as an incompetent thug.)
Surely he must be sacked in the morning !!!!!!
'Conte lets rip at Tottenham | 'I see selfish players - I don't see a team''
http://www.skysports.com/share/12837453
https://twitter.com/CraigoRobertson/status/1637201937173995521
The EU sends migrants to slave labour factories in LIbya they dont seem to care about rep
If we get a rep for summarily executing illegals (even though we actually arent) and illegals stop coming well thats one in the plus column as far as I can see.
I can confirm that during my visit to Washington DC last Christmas/ New Year I was informed that the US DoD were responsible for both the virus and the vaccines. Fort Detrick was named. Also a facility in Canada. (1/2)
10:19 AM · Mar 12, 2023
·
1.4M
Views
By the end of the month I expect to see the start of criminal proceedings against the many politicians and officials who are responsible around the world. (2/2)
10:19 AM · Mar 12, 2023
·
439.7K
Views
https://twitter.com/ABridgen/status/1634861570957225984?s=20
The idea of summarily executing anybody is totally abhorrent to me. Pretending to do so is both abhorrent and frankly ridiculous - if it were to be believed (it wouldn't) we'd be a pariah state; since it would be seen through very easily we'd just look totally stupid.
Have you been drinking?
And like Foxy says, something rather brighter where there is a desk.
If reputation is more important then you are hyacinth bucket and I claim my 5 pounds
No question, some people were injured and some died as a result of the covid vaccination. But vastly more lives were saved. If you don’t agree please show your evidence, and not just twitter posts.
Russia struggles to sell stuff abroad because almost everyone hates the Russian government. (Sorry, trollskis, but it's true.)
The lack of trust people have in the Chinese government has a similar effect; the world buys lots of Chinese stuff because it's cheap, and their attempts to move into higher-value stuff (say electronics) look like being hampered by the poor rep the Chinese state has.
Now you can sell anything if it's cheap enough, sure. But that feeds back into the fundamentally rubbish lives workers in those countries have. Similarly, the broadly positive view the world has of the British- that we're basically decent and honest and law-abiding makes the UK a place where people are willing to do business and we all profit from that.
An office in the eaves in summer, especially if you have computers and printers in it that get warm, might benefit from one of these though
https://www.theceilingfancompany.co.uk/fans-with-lights/mayfair-white-with-light-111825
Look for exterior lights as they offer that feature.
Not on YouTube.
We also have some ceiling-hung spots to shine into the wardrobe - useful on dark mornings when you're trying to fine the right colour shirt etc. but we use those only occasionally.
*Ok that's a joke.
Standards of behaviour and education are stratospheric in them compared to what they were.
I suspect UBS might be interested in Credit Suisse's private banking business - the clients and relationship managers - but not the organisation, and certainly not the investment bank.
10 games to play. Fewer than most of our rivals. 6 against the top 9.
Of the other 4 only 1 is at home. Bournemouth on the final day.
I reckon that is value.
The lack of legal asylum routes certainly does increase the number of small boat crossings however.
Yes, we equalised today, but it was our only shot on target of the game.
I do. Why? Not for hard nosed reasons. Probably somewhere deep down in my inner psyche. Something imbued in me by my parents. Wanting to be liked. Seen as an all round good egg. Not wanting to cause unnecessary offence. Some prefer to be liked than feared. Others, the reverse.
It’s perhaps one of those horseshoe theories which explain why the Etonians and the Red wall get along so unaccountably well together. A contentment with being feared and respected, rather than liked. Something shared by many Russians, US Republicans and - unlike his centrist brethren - Emmanuel Macron.
They don't seem to be getting any points at all.
It is desperately close between the bottom 9.
I want the UK to be positively thought of. But I think absent truly extreme Trumpian cases the reputation of a country and its citizens doesn't shift all that much, and certainly does not have the diplomatic effect some people think it does - deals get struck with dictators and authoritarian regimes all the time, if you avoid Putinesque exploits people's views might fluctuate a bit but any significant change, say on seeing your country as more prosperous, more liberal etc, will take many many years.
Any of the bottom 9 could go down.
Our last match is West Ham at home. It could come down to that.
Groucho Marx said he wouldn't want to join any club that would have him as a member. Why would UBS want to buy Credit Suisse? What is in it for them? One thinks back to Victor Blank and Lloyds deciding to buy HBOS without doing due diligence. Surely the most calamitous acquisition in British corporate history.
(Not to say I thought the budget was great by the way, It was, in my appraisal, not screamingly bad).
I think the decision was a stupid one, even though Bridgen is a deeply stupid man based on his words and actions, but Parliament makes footage available and he provided another way of accessing it. The power of a big company to control the debate because of the dominance of their platforms is something to be concerned about, but if they are not required to provide something, how can they be forced to do so?
"Nick Cohen
@NickCohen4
"The wokeism that dare not speak its name"
Long read from me on how, despite all the claims to the contrary, a distinct progressive ideology came out of the US and why its illiberalism will undermine it."
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1637045971581370374
"Two ideas can be true simultaneously. A new and distinct “woke” ideology developed after 2010 in American academia, and boorish right-wingers use “woke” to mean “whatever I don’t like”.
https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1637047538913013760
Fiscal drag.
That it wasn't mentioned in the Budget doesn't change that.
Plus. Constant below inflation pay offers make me worse off.
They aren't expressed either.
Still makes me worse off.
Looking forward to all the expert analysis on how he did after his period on the sidelines. A little rusty, short of match practice? Like he'd never been away?
Nicola Sturgeon’s sister has just said she would rather vote Tory than for Kate Forbes or Ash Regan
https://twitter.com/paulhutcheon/status/1637184432418217984
Surely getting deep into 3 figures on PB before the ban hammer deserves that.
If SLAB can't win at least 20 seats at the next election at this point then they're a bit shit.
We enjoy spotting them on the TV - usually in dramas, used to denote sophisticated good taste.
Thing like that might put a bit of stride in a chaps step…
https://imgur.com/HIcHo30
(I can think of how one might -- and sometimes should -- cast away assumptions, as one sometimes should, but just casting them?)