20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.
Exactly. All that time spent reading Trollope and Dickens and playing with the grandchildren, and reading them books when I could have been watching daytime telly.
Once again I’m respectfully going to disagree with the key premise of this thread. I recognise for OGH and others the experience of 1992 casts a long shadow.
The polling in England continues to show a 13-17% swing from Conservatives to Labour - more than enough to guarantee a substantial Labour majority. As for Reform, there’s no polling evidence to show they would switch en bloc to the Conservatives. A quarter would vote Tory if there were no Reform candidate but I think Tice is determined to put up a full slate.
As for the 2019 Conservative vote, between 15-18% of that vote is going Labour if the polls are right. That’s not a small number given the size of the vote. One sixth of 45 equals seven and a half so that’s 7.5% moving directly with about the same peeling off to Reform, Greens and LDs.
That’s where we are right now - Labour in the mid 40s, Conservatives just south of 30% and the LDs just north of 10%.
That may be where we are in May or October next year - it may not. Historical evidence is mixed - it may already be game over for the Conservatives after what would be 14 years in Government.
History rarely follows symmetrically - this may not be 1997 or 1992 but perhaps 1964 but again it’s more likely, as with the sentiments of a growing number of voters, to be none of the above.
In January Peter Kellner opined that on UNS Labour would get a majority on a 13 percent point lead over the Tories. Such a lead is far for assured.
Though I suspect if Scotland continues going towards Labour that 13 points may be reduced a bit; as it would also be for tactical voting.
It's been a while since UNS has reliably mapped onto seats, isn't it?
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
One or two possibles: Avoid news and allied stuff (like PB) altogether for several days and reintroduce very slowly. Low sugar diet. The best works of PG Wodehouse and Mozart. Vitamin D. Omega 3. Personally I think a higher rather than low fat content in diet helps but this is controversial for other reasons. Sun but not too much. Big skies. Detective novels of the 1930s. Lying under a tree by running water. Small babies.
The last is particularly delicious now that BBQ season is here.
20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
One or two possibles: Avoid news and allied stuff (like PB) altogether for several days and reintroduce very slowly. Low sugar diet. The best works of PG Wodehouse and Mozart. Vitamin D. Omega 3. Personally I think a higher rather than low fat content in diet helps but this is controversial for other reasons. Sun but not too much. Big skies. Detective novels of the 1930s. Lying under a tree by running water. Small babies.
The last is particularly delicious now that BBQ season is here.
20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.
Is it that long since Richard and Judy did it?
I am not that familiar with what goes on in their marriage but that seems unlikely.
Once again I’m respectfully going to disagree with the key premise of this thread. I recognise for OGH and others the experience of 1992 casts a long shadow.
The polling in England continues to show a 13-17% swing from Conservatives to Labour - more than enough to guarantee a substantial Labour majority. As for Reform, there’s no polling evidence to show they would switch en bloc to the Conservatives. A quarter would vote Tory if there were no Reform candidate but I think Tice is determined to put up a full slate.
As for the 2019 Conservative vote, between 15-18% of that vote is going Labour if the polls are right. That’s not a small number given the size of the vote. One sixth of 45 equals seven and a half so that’s 7.5% moving directly with about the same peeling off to Reform, Greens and LDs.
That’s where we are right now - Labour in the mid 40s, Conservatives just south of 30% and the LDs just north of 10%.
That may be where we are in May or October next year - it may not. Historical evidence is mixed - it may already be game over for the Conservatives after what would be 14 years in Government.
History rarely follows symmetrically - this may not be 1997 or 1992 but perhaps 1964 but again it’s more likely, as with the sentiments of a growing number of voters, to be none of the above.
In January Peter Kellner opined that on UNS Labour would get a majority on a 13 percent point lead over the Tories. Such a lead is far for assured.
Though I suspect if Scotland continues going towards Labour that 13 points may be reduced a bit; as it would also be for tactical voting.
It's been a while since UNS has reliably mapped onto seats, isn't it?
Since the rise of the Alliance in '83?
Indeed. There still needs to be a system for simple folk like me to turn polling into seats in a rough and ready way.
A few elections ago the great Iain Dale tried to predict seat results seat by seat nationally by individual analysis, knowledge and intuition. It was very informative, and astonishingly wrong across the board.
Once again I’m respectfully going to disagree with the key premise of this thread. I recognise for OGH and others the experience of 1992 casts a long shadow.
The polling in England continues to show a 13-17% swing from Conservatives to Labour - more than enough to guarantee a substantial Labour majority. As for Reform, there’s no polling evidence to show they would switch en bloc to the Conservatives. A quarter would vote Tory if there were no Reform candidate but I think Tice is determined to put up a full slate.
As for the 2019 Conservative vote, between 15-18% of that vote is going Labour if the polls are right. That’s not a small number given the size of the vote. One sixth of 45 equals seven and a half so that’s 7.5% moving directly with about the same peeling off to Reform, Greens and LDs.
That’s where we are right now - Labour in the mid 40s, Conservatives just south of 30% and the LDs just north of 10%.
That may be where we are in May or October next year - it may not. Historical evidence is mixed - it may already be game over for the Conservatives after what would be 14 years in Government.
History rarely follows symmetrically - this may not be 1997 or 1992 but perhaps 1964 but again it’s more likely, as with the sentiments of a growing number of voters, to be none of the above.
In January Peter Kellner opined that on UNS Labour would get a majority on a 13 percent point lead over the Tories. Such a lead is far for assured.
Though I suspect if Scotland continues going towards Labour that 13 points may be reduced a bit; as it would also be for tactical voting.
It's been a while since UNS has reliably mapped onto seats, isn't it?
Since the rise of the Alliance in '83?
I don't think many people expected Cameron to win a majority in 2015 with a lead comprising of 37% to 31%. A lot of that was down to the fact that the LDs weren't expected to be reduced to just 8 seats.
Incidentally if anyone hasn't watched the interview with Kwasi Kwarteng and Cathy Neuman it's a classic. Well worth watching
Neuman who usually specialises in Ch4 sex stories asks with a knowing smile 'Don't you feel a little uncomfortable losing £40 billion of the country's money in a matter of weeks'
Kwarteng looking like he's being quizzed by an admiring first year GCSE student 'Come on Kathy. Every Minister makes mistakes'
20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.
I watched Philip Schofield during his Gordon the Gopher days.
Once again I’m respectfully going to disagree with the key premise of this thread. I recognise for OGH and others the experience of 1992 casts a long shadow.
The polling in England continues to show a 13-17% swing from Conservatives to Labour - more than enough to guarantee a substantial Labour majority. As for Reform, there’s no polling evidence to show they would switch en bloc to the Conservatives. A quarter would vote Tory if there were no Reform candidate but I think Tice is determined to put up a full slate.
As for the 2019 Conservative vote, between 15-18% of that vote is going Labour if the polls are right. That’s not a small number given the size of the vote. One sixth of 45 equals seven and a half so that’s 7.5% moving directly with about the same peeling off to Reform, Greens and LDs.
That’s where we are right now - Labour in the mid 40s, Conservatives just south of 30% and the LDs just north of 10%.
That may be where we are in May or October next year - it may not. Historical evidence is mixed - it may already be game over for the Conservatives after what would be 14 years in Government.
History rarely follows symmetrically - this may not be 1997 or 1992 but perhaps 1964 but again it’s more likely, as with the sentiments of a growing number of voters, to be none of the above.
In January Peter Kellner opined that on UNS Labour would get a majority on a 13 percent point lead over the Tories. Such a lead is far for assured.
Though I suspect if Scotland continues going towards Labour that 13 points may be reduced a bit; as it would also be for tactical voting.
It's been a while since UNS has reliably mapped onto seats, isn't it?
Since the rise of the Alliance in '83?
Indeed. There still needs to be a system for simple folk like me to turn polling into seats in a rough and ready way.
A few elections ago the great Iain Dale tried to predict seat results seat by seat nationally by individual analysis, knowledge and intuition. It was very informative, and astonishingly wrong across the board.
Incidentally if anyone hasn't watched the interview with Kwasi Kwarteng and Cathy Neuman it's a classic. Well worth watching
Neuman who usually specialises in Ch4 sex stories asks with a knowing smile 'Don't you feel a little uncomfortable losing £40 billion of the country's money in a matter of weeks'
Kwarteng looking like he's being quizzed by an admiring first year GCSE student 'Come on Kathy. Every Minister makes mistakes'
Once again I’m respectfully going to disagree with the key premise of this thread. I recognise for OGH and others the experience of 1992 casts a long shadow.
The polling in England continues to show a 13-17% swing from Conservatives to Labour - more than enough to guarantee a substantial Labour majority. As for Reform, there’s no polling evidence to show they would switch en bloc to the Conservatives. A quarter would vote Tory if there were no Reform candidate but I think Tice is determined to put up a full slate.
As for the 2019 Conservative vote, between 15-18% of that vote is going Labour if the polls are right. That’s not a small number given the size of the vote. One sixth of 45 equals seven and a half so that’s 7.5% moving directly with about the same peeling off to Reform, Greens and LDs.
That’s where we are right now - Labour in the mid 40s, Conservatives just south of 30% and the LDs just north of 10%.
That may be where we are in May or October next year - it may not. Historical evidence is mixed - it may already be game over for the Conservatives after what would be 14 years in Government.
History rarely follows symmetrically - this may not be 1997 or 1992 but perhaps 1964 but again it’s more likely, as with the sentiments of a growing number of voters, to be none of the above.
In January Peter Kellner opined that on UNS Labour would get a majority on a 13 percent point lead over the Tories. Such a lead is far for assured.
Though I suspect if Scotland continues going towards Labour that 13 points may be reduced a bit; as it would also be for tactical voting.
It's been a while since UNS has reliably mapped onto seats, isn't it?
Since the rise of the Alliance in '83?
Indeed. There still needs to be a system for simple folk like me to turn polling into seats in a rough and ready way.
A few elections ago the great Iain Dale tried to predict seat results seat by seat nationally by individual analysis, knowledge and intuition. It was very informative, and astonishingly wrong across the board.
‘Great’ in what sense ?
In the sense of approximating to good egg, does political journalism without bombast, member of the good chaps club of the political world. Broadly manages to appear as if he is not a sociopath, psychopath, narcissist or maniac. Hold his beliefs rationally and subject to the possibility of being wrong.
20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.
Exactly. All that time spent reading Trollope and Dickens and playing with the grandchildren, and reading them books when I could have been watching daytime telly.
20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.
I watched Philip Schofield during his Gordon the Gopher days.
Joseph Chamberlain, Mayor of Birmingham, on the establishment of the Birmingham Corporation Water Department;
“We have not the slightest intention of making profit... We shall get our profit indirectly in the comfort of the town and in the health of the inhabitants“
1875
I recon, 150 years on, we’ll return to those principles.
20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.
I watched Philip Schofield during his Gordon the Gopher days.
A historic moment. People will ask me in years to come "What were you doing when Pip Schofield left, viewcode" and I will answer "Stuck indoors on a politics website when I should be outside in the sun"...
Incidentally, did anybody ever say out loud what it was Philip and Holly were arguing about?
I'm going to say it, although I know it's basically a heretical statement: I've always found Holly Willoughby a bit annoying.
20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.
I watched Philip Schofield during his Gordon the Gopher days.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
It's not a popular view, and I hesitate to even express it (not least because I don't want to side with idiot far-right trolls), but I'd argue that there should be limits to how committed to total victory at any cost that we want to be.
Some people on here get genuinely angry if you don't hew to the party line on the Malorussia situation.
Are you really the Count of Missingo, or do you just pretend?
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
First tip: don't accept advice off the internet.
Second tip, ignoring the first: everyone is different, and those who have coping mechanisms may well have very generalised ones. I don't often suffer badly from anxiety nowadays, but when I did whilst younger, I used to go ballistic: go for a long walk/limp into the countryside. It used to help me, but I can imagine it may make it worse for others...
I'm gutted I didn't get a chance to play with him.
Did he mention vaccines?
I got him on to the gays.
Went downhill from there.
Does the same schmuck get the assignment every week, or is it a punishment rota?
That's a really interesting question.
My guess is that it's a bit of both. A few months ago, we had a really excellent troll, who was able to chat on a range of subjects, and - sure - would always make sure to get Kremlin talking points in there, but was always interesting.
One thing that "impresses" me, is that they clearly keep files on various PB users. So, they all seem to know that (a) I used to work at Goldman Sachs, (b) I live in Los Angeles, and (c) I have a startup auto insurance business.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
I'd put Connery first, followed by Craig. I associate Moore with crap jokes and crap special effects. I'm not a Bond superfan though. I like them but prefer the Bourne films.
If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie.
No
License to Kill is better than you remember, and certainly much better than (to name a few):
Quantum of Solace, Diamonds are Forever, and most of the later Brosnan movies.
Spectre is weighed down by an absurd side plot about Five Eyes intelligence sharing, but there's nothing wrong with the core. It's just there's 100 minutes of decent in a two and a half hour movie.
Washington Post (via Seattle Times) - Mike Lindell’s $5 million contest winner takes him to federal court
A Nevada computer scientist has gone to federal court to pursue the $5 million prize he is owed by MyPillow Chief Executive Mike Lindell following a ruling by private arbitrators last month.
The arbitrators found that Robert Zeidman deserved the money because he had successfully challenged data related to Lindell’s false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen – and had thus won a contest Lindell had dubbed: “Prove Mike Wrong.”
In their April 19 decision, they gave Lindell’s firm, Lindell Management, 30 days to pay.
Since then, Lindell has not turned over any money, and on Thursday he asked a state court in Minnesota to vacate the award on the grounds that the arbitration panel had “exceeded its powers.”
Zeidman’s attorneys on Friday filed a petition in federal district court in Minnesota to force Lindell to pay the prize, plus interest of 10 percent a year.
They are asking a judge to confirm the legitimacy of the arbitrators’ award and to enter a $5 million judgment against Lindell’s firm. Such a judgment would empower Zeidman with stronger legal tools he could use to collect his winnings.
“There are no circumstances under which I’m letting him run away with that money,” said Brian Glasser, one of Zeidman’s attorneys.
Lindell said he would continue to fight to quash the arbitration award.
“It’s not about payment, it’s wrong. They’re just doing this trying to discredit the evidence and the evidence is all there,” he said in an interview Friday. “We’re taking it to court. It’s just all corrupt.”
Under federal and state law, a decision to vacate the award would require finding that the arbitrators had committed misconduct, exceeded their powers or that the process was otherwise corrupt.
The controversy grew out of an offer Lindell made ahead of a “cyber symposium” he held in August 2021 in South Dakota. In public and broadcast appearances, he claimed that he had data showing that the Chinese government had interfered with the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and he said he would pay a $5 million prize to any cyber expert who could prove that the material was not from that election.
Zeidman examined Lindell’s data and concluded that it did not substantiate Lindell’s claims of fraud and in fact had no connection to the 2020 election. In their decision, the arbitrators said Zeidman proved that Lindell’s material “unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data.”
Lindell has been one of the most stalwart and vocal proponents of former president Donald Trump’s false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the 2020 election.
Lindell faces a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems – the company that recently secured a historic settlement in a defamation case against Fox News – and another defamation lawsuit from a former Dominion executive. . . .
Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.
The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.
When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.
Re: pillow-monger and mega-MAGA-maniac Mike Lindell, note that his once-ubiquitous ads on US el cheapo broadcast TV, have (mercifully) disappeared from their airwaves in recent weeks.
My guess is that his alleged defamer and obvious nutjob, is yet ANOTHER of Trump's henchpeople, enablers, etc., etc., who has been driven to moral, political and perhaps fiscal bankruptcy, due to their hooking their fortunes to those of the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo.
Fascinating wording in SNP announcement of an independence convention. If this characterisation of the convention is accurate, Sturgeon’s de facto referendum is officially dead.
Washington Post (via Seattle Times) - Mike Lindell’s $5 million contest winner takes him to federal court
A Nevada computer scientist has gone to federal court to pursue the $5 million prize he is owed by MyPillow Chief Executive Mike Lindell following a ruling by private arbitrators last month.
The arbitrators found that Robert Zeidman deserved the money because he had successfully challenged data related to Lindell’s false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen – and had thus won a contest Lindell had dubbed: “Prove Mike Wrong.”
In their April 19 decision, they gave Lindell’s firm, Lindell Management, 30 days to pay.
Since then, Lindell has not turned over any money, and on Thursday he asked a state court in Minnesota to vacate the award on the grounds that the arbitration panel had “exceeded its powers.”
Zeidman’s attorneys on Friday filed a petition in federal district court in Minnesota to force Lindell to pay the prize, plus interest of 10 percent a year.
They are asking a judge to confirm the legitimacy of the arbitrators’ award and to enter a $5 million judgment against Lindell’s firm. Such a judgment would empower Zeidman with stronger legal tools he could use to collect his winnings.
“There are no circumstances under which I’m letting him run away with that money,” said Brian Glasser, one of Zeidman’s attorneys.
Lindell said he would continue to fight to quash the arbitration award.
“It’s not about payment, it’s wrong. They’re just doing this trying to discredit the evidence and the evidence is all there,” he said in an interview Friday. “We’re taking it to court. It’s just all corrupt.”
Under federal and state law, a decision to vacate the award would require finding that the arbitrators had committed misconduct, exceeded their powers or that the process was otherwise corrupt.
The controversy grew out of an offer Lindell made ahead of a “cyber symposium” he held in August 2021 in South Dakota. In public and broadcast appearances, he claimed that he had data showing that the Chinese government had interfered with the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and he said he would pay a $5 million prize to any cyber expert who could prove that the material was not from that election.
Zeidman examined Lindell’s data and concluded that it did not substantiate Lindell’s claims of fraud and in fact had no connection to the 2020 election. In their decision, the arbitrators said Zeidman proved that Lindell’s material “unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data.”
Lindell has been one of the most stalwart and vocal proponents of former president Donald Trump’s false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the 2020 election.
Lindell faces a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems – the company that recently secured a historic settlement in a defamation case against Fox News – and another defamation lawsuit from a former Dominion executive. . . .
What's scary is that Lindell (and Ginni Thomas) are sincere in their views. They genuinely believe that the Democrats somehow stole the election by fraud. And once you start with that premise, then suddenly everything you do is justified.
Trump knows he lost, but he cares only about how people see him, and he can't bear to be thought of as a loser. And therefore he pushed the story about fraud, because it made him not a loser.
And then Fox News amplified it, because it was what its viewers wanted to hear.
It's very sad. And I don't know what the answer is.
Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.
The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.
When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.
20 years to watch Philip Schofield on This Morning and I missed every one of them. That's about 1825 chances and I blew them all. Sometimes I think I just waste my life and its bit me hard here.
I watched Philip Schofield during his Gordon the Gopher days.
Fire up ITV of a morning. Start with Suzanna and Ed Balls, then Lorraine, then Phil and Holly, finally Loose Women. 6am to 2pm. 8 hours. How much would people need to do that stretch?
Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.
The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.
When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Agree 100% with all of that.
In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.
The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.
When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.
Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.
The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.
When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.
Washington Post (via Seattle Times) - Mike Lindell’s $5 million contest winner takes him to federal court
A Nevada computer scientist has gone to federal court to pursue the $5 million prize he is owed by MyPillow Chief Executive Mike Lindell following a ruling by private arbitrators last month.
The arbitrators found that Robert Zeidman deserved the money because he had successfully challenged data related to Lindell’s false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen – and had thus won a contest Lindell had dubbed: “Prove Mike Wrong.”
In their April 19 decision, they gave Lindell’s firm, Lindell Management, 30 days to pay.
Since then, Lindell has not turned over any money, and on Thursday he asked a state court in Minnesota to vacate the award on the grounds that the arbitration panel had “exceeded its powers.”
Zeidman’s attorneys on Friday filed a petition in federal district court in Minnesota to force Lindell to pay the prize, plus interest of 10 percent a year.
They are asking a judge to confirm the legitimacy of the arbitrators’ award and to enter a $5 million judgment against Lindell’s firm. Such a judgment would empower Zeidman with stronger legal tools he could use to collect his winnings.
“There are no circumstances under which I’m letting him run away with that money,” said Brian Glasser, one of Zeidman’s attorneys.
Lindell said he would continue to fight to quash the arbitration award.
“It’s not about payment, it’s wrong. They’re just doing this trying to discredit the evidence and the evidence is all there,” he said in an interview Friday. “We’re taking it to court. It’s just all corrupt.”
Under federal and state law, a decision to vacate the award would require finding that the arbitrators had committed misconduct, exceeded their powers or that the process was otherwise corrupt.
The controversy grew out of an offer Lindell made ahead of a “cyber symposium” he held in August 2021 in South Dakota. In public and broadcast appearances, he claimed that he had data showing that the Chinese government had interfered with the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and he said he would pay a $5 million prize to any cyber expert who could prove that the material was not from that election.
Zeidman examined Lindell’s data and concluded that it did not substantiate Lindell’s claims of fraud and in fact had no connection to the 2020 election. In their decision, the arbitrators said Zeidman proved that Lindell’s material “unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data.”
Lindell has been one of the most stalwart and vocal proponents of former president Donald Trump’s false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the 2020 election.
Lindell faces a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems – the company that recently secured a historic settlement in a defamation case against Fox News – and another defamation lawsuit from a former Dominion executive. . . .
What's scary is that Lindell (and Ginni Thomas) are sincere in their views. They genuinely believe that the Democrats somehow stole the election by fraud. And once you start with that premise, then suddenly everything you do is justified.
Trump knows he lost, but he cares only about how people see him, and he can't bear to be thought of as a loser. And therefore he pushed the story about fraud, because it made him not a loser.
And then Fox News amplified it, because it was what its viewers wanted to hear.
It's very sad. And I don't know what the answer is.
IMHO you are letting the likes of Ginni Thomas and Mike Lindell off WAY WAY WAY tooooo easy.
Why? Because while they've no doubt brainwashed themselves, they did it on premise that retaining the White House for their Fearless Leader, would pay huge political AND financial dividends for . . . wait for it . . . the likes of Ginni Thomas and Mike Lindell.
Certainly nothing re: the careers of THESE two, gives the slightest confidence in their personal, professional and fiscal integrity. Quite the opposite.
Fascinating wording in SNP announcement of an independence convention. If this characterisation of the convention is accurate, Sturgeon’s de facto referendum is officially dead.
Well, if they proceeded with Nicola's sub Baldrick plan it is obvious that they would lose, bigly. By "fighting" for a second referendum that they would also lose at this point they can keep the whole charade on the road for another few months, at least. That seems to be the peak of SNP ambition right now.
Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.
The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.
When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.
Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.
The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.
When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.
Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.
The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.
When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.
Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.
The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.
When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.
I did one of those courses a few years ago.I found it very interesting.
Ditto. You would have thought she would have learnt the perils of this sort of stuff from Chris Huhne. Why not just take the fine and points. Even if it means a ban just suck it up. It's not as if she can't afford other means of transport.
I thought we decided that AI just made it all up anyway. More of a threat to journalism than free speech if you ask me.
Speaking of which, maybe there should be a Matt test: an AI system that can regularly and reliably produce cartoons that we all think are really by Matt really is AI and really is pretty bright.
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Agree 100% with all of that.
In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.
Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.
I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.
For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
Fascinating wording in SNP announcement of an independence convention. If this characterisation of the convention is accurate, Sturgeon’s de facto referendum is officially dead.
Well, if they proceeded with Nicola's sub Baldrick plan it is obvious that they would lose, bigly. By "fighting" for a second referendum that they would also lose at this point they can keep the whole charade on the road for another few months, at least. That seems to be the peak of SNP ambition right now.
Someone should push Humza on whether the GE is or is not a de facto indyref. No doubt the real answer is 'it is if we win; it isn't if we lose'.
Suella Braverman asked civil servants to help her avoid a speeding fine and points on her licence by arranging a private one-to-one driving awareness course.
The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.
When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.
The right course is to get your publicity in first, let it be known that you have been caught, like happens to us all, even archbishops, you are pleased you are allowed to take an awareness course, you hope you can learn from it and are joining in with all the other speeding punters.
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Agree 100% with all of that.
In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.
Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.
I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.
For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
Quantum of Solace has two problems.
Firstly, on the initial watch at least, it's incomprehensible. Why is Bond there? Who is he chasing? When you know the plot already, it kinda makes sense. But it's really hard to understand what's going on.
Secondly, the baddie... is... perhaps the least threatening baddie in the history of the Bond movies. My 15 year old daughter could beat the Dominic Greene character in a fight. He looks like he'd shy away from a harshly thrown word.
Plus, that fight scene near the start where they're swinging around fighting is pretty rubbish.
With that said, the action sequences are otherwise pretty good. I love the water angle. And the main female lead was great.
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Agree 100% with all of that.
In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.
Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.
I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.
For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
Re the threats in the Dalton movies; that's a very good point. An arms dealer and a drug dealer don't really set the world alight.
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Agree 100% with all of that.
In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.
Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.
I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.
For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
Re the threats in the Dalton movies; that's a very good point. An arms dealer and a drug dealer don't really set the world alight.
Drugs soaked in petrol would very much set the world alight!
Unfortuneately, PeoplePolling have not published a poll since March, but as Savanta is polling weekly I have included them in the average. Since PeoplePolling was such an outlier, resulting in the average Conservative vote being around 1% less, the previous tables I posted before Easter are not comparable.
As can be seen, the Conservatives are back to their position at the start of March, before their short surge, whilst Labour has lost around 2% to the Lib Dems. Whether this will be maintained is unknown.
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Agree 100% with all of that.
In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.
Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.
I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.
For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
Re the threats in the Dalton movies; that's a very good point. An arms dealer and a drug dealer don't really set the world alight.
Exactly. Can't remember the drug dealer's name but he was quite a nasty piece of work at least, but Brad Whittaker the arms dealer was silly, didn’t have a lair to speak of, and only the milk man henchman was menacing in the slightest. Add to that, once Bond has fooled the baddies that he's killed the General, they're basically done.
It is an interesting period piece though, with its glowing portrayal of Al Qaeda/The Taliban, who were seen as frightfully good chaps at that time.
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Agree 100% with all of that.
In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.
Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.
I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.
For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
Re the threats in the Dalton movies; that's a very good point. An arms dealer and a drug dealer don't really set the world alight.
Drugs soaked in petrol would very much set the world alight!
I seem to remember the villain does experience a similar fate.
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Agree 100% with all of that.
In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.
Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.
I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.
For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
Re the threats in the Dalton movies; that's a very good point. An arms dealer and a drug dealer don't really set the world alight.
Exactly. Can't remember the drug dealer's name but he was quite a nasty piece of work at least, but Brad Whittaker the arms dealer was silly, didn’t have a lair to speak of, and only the milk man henchman was menacing in the slightest. Add to that, once Bond has fooled the baddies that he's killed the General, they're basically done.
It is an interesting period piece though, with its glowing portrayal of Al Qaeda/The Taliban, who were seen as frightfully good chaps at that time.
I think the Afghans were Mujahadeen, not Taliban, the latter only sprung up in the 90s IIUC
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Agree 100% with all of that.
In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.
Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.
I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.
For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
Re the threats in the Dalton movies; that's a very good point. An arms dealer and a drug dealer don't really set the world alight.
Exactly. Can't remember the drug dealer's name but he was quite a nasty piece of work at least, but Brad Whittaker the arms dealer was silly, didn’t have a lair to speak of, and only the milk man henchman was menacing in the slightest. Add to that, once Bond has fooled the baddies that he's killed the General, they're basically done.
It is an interesting period piece though, with its glowing portrayal of Al Qaeda/The Taliban, who were seen as frightfully good chaps at that time.
I think the Afghans were Mujahadeen, not Taliban, the latter only sprung up in the 90s IIUC
I had always thought that that was a distinction without a difference, but I freely admit to my knowledge on the subject being vague.
According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.
If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Agree 100% with all of that.
In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.
Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.
I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.
For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
Quantum of Solace has two problems.
Firstly, on the initial watch at least, it's incomprehensible. Why is Bond there? Who is he chasing? When you know the plot already, it kinda makes sense. But it's really hard to understand what's going on.
Secondly, the baddie... is... perhaps the least threatening baddie in the history of the Bond movies. My 15 year old daughter could beat the Dominic Greene character in a fight. He looks like he'd shy away from a harshly thrown word.
Plus, that fight scene near the start where they're swinging around fighting is pretty rubbish.
With that said, the action sequences are otherwise pretty good. I love the water angle. And the main female lead was great.
QoS suffered from the Writers Strike.
Some people say you should view it as a sort of Casino Royale Part 2, then it becomes clearer.
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Agree 100% with all of that.
In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.
Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.
I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.
For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
Re the threats in the Dalton movies; that's a very good point. An arms dealer and a drug dealer don't really set the world alight.
Exactly. Can't remember the drug dealer's name but he was quite a nasty piece of work at least, but Brad Whittaker the arms dealer was silly, didn’t have a lair to speak of, and only the milk man henchman was menacing in the slightest. Add to that, once Bond has fooled the baddies that he's killed the General, they're basically done.
It is an interesting period piece though, with its glowing portrayal of Al Qaeda/The Taliban, who were seen as frightfully good chaps at that time.
I think the Afghans were Mujahadeen, not Taliban, the latter only sprung up in the 90s IIUC
Plenty of Mujahadeen later went on to become Taliban.
The West fueled Islamic Extremism in Soviet occupied Afghanistan, because that was the cheapest way to cause problems for the Russians. (See Rambo 3 and Charlie Wilson's War.)
The Lib Dems can make hay with this water issue. It's exactly the kind local/national and urban/rural issue that works for them, and Labour are being too timid on it.
I even think it must be a considerable part of their recent poll revival ; it seems also to have been central on their campaiging for the locals, for instance It also helps clearly differentiate them from a Tory outlook, once more, which is key to reviving their fortunes.
"Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron denounced the billions going to shareholders as “absolutely scandalous” while families struggling with the cost of living would be facing increases in bills to pay for the sewage cleanup.
“The whole thing stinks,” said Farron, Lib Dem spokesperson on the environment. “This is their mess, they should be the ones to clean it up – not hard-working families.
“The Conservative government needs to stop sitting on their hands and force water companies to use their unearned and unjustified profits to fix the sewage crisis.”
According to analysis by David Hall, visiting professor at the public services international research unit at Greenwich University, dividend payments by the nine English water and sewerage companies, based on 2022 prices, will cost customers £624 each by 2030.
Hall examined annual dividends paid by companies between 2010 and 2022, which average £1.83bn a year. He said all companies have stated policies to reassure investors that they would get good dividends every year. “That implies a total of £14.67bn would be taken in dividends between 2023 and 2030.”
Alastair Chisholm, director of policy at the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management, said the high-profile announcement of massive investment in pipes, treatment works and water storage was a lot of spin. It had been forced on to water companies as a result of public outrage, which has driven the government and the regulator to take tougher action.
“The scale of this investment was known about, water companies know they have to vastly increase investment in storm overflows and treatment works to stay legally compliant because of the regulatory response to the public outcry,” said Chisholm.
“And it is the bill payers who are going to pay this huge amount.”
A spokesperson for Water UK said dividends acted as a return on overall investment into things like leaks and new supplies of water. They said the dividend yield in 2021-22 was 3.8%, below Ofwat’s assumption of 4%.
“If dividends weren’t paid then there would be no return and so no investment across all those things.
According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.
If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?
No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)
The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.
He may be struggling to win Tories, but this Tory thinks he's more likely to vote for Starmer's Labour than Sunak's Conservatives.
I don't trust Starmer, or Labour, but he at least seems to get the housing issue in this country. Sunak is merely playing up to his NIMBY supporters.
I'll probably vote Lib Dem at the next election, but if Starmer keeps talking about things like housing and not left-wing economics, then I could be very tempted to vote Labour for the first time since 2001.
Anyone got any tips for generalised anxiety? Mine's off the chart today. Was thinking about getting out in the sun to the driving range but I'm not sure a few bad swings would do me much good.
Glang! Glang a lang a lang lang, bada bum, dum dum dum dum Nowbodddy duuuz it bedder, ....
I love how Alan Partridge thinks Roger Moore is the best bond. It's one of those perfectly pitched details that make him such an unparalleled comic creation.
I think it depends on many things, including the era you were raised in, and what you want from a James Bond film. I was raised firmly in the Moore era, so I see the early Connery Bonds as being a bit 'old'. They also stride the line between thriller and entertainment: but if you want a gritty spy thriller, there are much better films or series: Smileys People, for instance. And again, if you want fun, there are better ones.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
Dalton was underrated as Bond. Both of his outings hold up reasonably well today.
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Agree 100% with all of that.
In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
Timothy Dalton was very good - his films suffered a little from a lack of scale in the threats he defeated, probably a reaction to some of the overblown storylines in films like Moonraker. License to Kill isn't bad at all though, and the theme song is a highlight.
Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.
I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.
For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
Quantum of Solace has two problems.
Firstly, on the initial watch at least, it's incomprehensible. Why is Bond there? Who is he chasing? When you know the plot already, it kinda makes sense. But it's really hard to understand what's going on.
Secondly, the baddie... is... perhaps the least threatening baddie in the history of the Bond movies. My 15 year old daughter could beat the Dominic Greene character in a fight. He looks like he'd shy away from a harshly thrown word.
Plus, that fight scene near the start where they're swinging around fighting is pretty rubbish.
With that said, the action sequences are otherwise pretty good. I love the water angle. And the main female lead was great.
Yes, I'll agree with those criticisms. Not all of the Bond villians have been physically imposing though, but those who haven't been have usually had access to some impressive weaponry and gadgetry. Or a deadly henchman or two. He was truly loathsome though; he had that down.
What I like about it is the interesting storyline (water), which I find cuts quite close to the bone of real geopolitics, beautiful locations, beautiful women in strong parts, and more of the Bond elements returning to the franchise.
According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.
If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?
No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)
The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.
* Bulb customers
That's just crazy! And by now surely Bulb's prices (or whatever Government Bulb calls itself) have risen in response to the energy crisis?
According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.
If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?
No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)
The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.
* Bulb customers
Bulb customers should have been taken on at Ofgem Price Cap prices.
According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.
If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?
No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)
The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.
* Bulb customers
That's just crazy! And by now surely Bulb's prices (or whatever Government Bulb calls itself) have risen in response to the energy crisis?
Bulb customers are rolling on to standard Octopus tariffs, so the subsidy is disappearing.
Off topic:"The National Review wrote about a survey from a pollster aligned with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) that gets at a key question: How much better off would the GOP be with DeSantis as its nominee? We have, of course, seen DeSantis generally performing better in the general election than Donald Trump. But this poll looked at the down-ballot effects for the Republican Party. And it showed the GOP doing better under DeSantis there, as well.
The WPA Intelligence poll tested the “generic ballot” — would you vote for a generic Republican or a generic Democrat for Congress? — with both DeSantis and Trump at the top of the ticket. While a Trump-led GOP was tied on the generic ballot (44 percent to 44 percent), a DeSantis-led one was ahead by five points (47-42)." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/20/desantis-trump-generic-ballot/
This would not be news to rational Republican leaders, but would be to some Republican voters.
(After the 2016 presidential election, I looked at the results in swing states and found evidence that Trump won those states because of "reverse coat tails". He was pulled over the line by more popular Republicans on the same ticket. He hasn't repaid them for that favor.)
According to a written answer by BEIS, the Bulb losses have now cost the taxpayer £901million.
If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?
No one would have taken the Bulb customers on at Bulb prices. (And it was the price they were selling to consumers that is the ultimate cause of the losses.)
The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.
* Bulb customers
Bulb customers should have been taken on at Ofgem Price Cap prices.
Despite being thankful for RCS's explanation, I still don't see why they were taken on at all. My own supplier went bust; my energy started being provided by Shell and my bills shot up. That sucks for me, but I'll live. I don't get why Bulb is any different. I mean of all the key industries and heritage brands that the Government has happily waved cheerio to so as not to intervene in the free market, it chooses to save a huge and frankly pointless energy intermediary?
He may be struggling to win Tories, but this Tory thinks he's more likely to vote for Starmer's Labour than Sunak's Conservatives.
I don't trust Starmer, or Labour, but he at least seems to get the housing issue in this country. Sunak is merely playing up to his NIMBY supporters.
I'll probably vote Lib Dem at the next election, but if Starmer keeps talking about things like housing and not left-wing economics, then I could be very tempted to vote Labour for the first time since 2001.
Off topic:"The National Review wrote about a survey from a pollster aligned with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) that gets at a key question: How much better off would the GOP be with DeSantis as its nominee? We have, of course, seen DeSantis generally performing better in the general election than Donald Trump. But this poll looked at the down-ballot effects for the Republican Party. And it showed the GOP doing better under DeSantis there, as well.
The WPA Intelligence poll tested the “generic ballot” — would you vote for a generic Republican or a generic Democrat for Congress? — with both DeSantis and Trump at the top of the ticket. While a Trump-led GOP was tied on the generic ballot (44 percent to 44 percent), a DeSantis-led one was ahead by five points (47-42)." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/20/desantis-trump-generic-ballot/
This would not be news to rational Republican leaders, but would be to some Republican voters.
(After the 2016 presidential election, I looked at the results in swing states and found evidence that Trump won those states because of "reverse coat tails". He was pulled over the line by more popular Republicans on the same ticket. He hasn't repaid them for that favor.)
That is very plausible.
But here's the other question Republican leaders need to ask themselves: would a defeated Trump throw his weight behind DeSantis, or would he cry that it was all rigged against him?
Comments
Who is Philip Schofield?
Since the rise of the Alliance in '83?
A few elections ago the great Iain Dale tried to predict seat results seat by seat nationally by individual analysis, knowledge and intuition. It was very informative, and astonishingly wrong across the board.
In his world these are not trivial achievements.
Did he mention vaccines?
“We have not the slightest intention of making profit... We shall get our profit indirectly in the comfort of the town and in the health of the inhabitants“
1875
I recon, 150 years on, we’ll return to those principles.
The Thatcherite experiment has failed.
Went downhill from there.
I hear they pick somebody at random from the Radiohead fan club pineapple on pizza fan club.
Second tip, ignoring the first: everyone is different, and those who have coping mechanisms may well have very generalised ones. I don't often suffer badly from anxiety nowadays, but when I did whilst younger, I used to go ballistic: go for a long walk/limp into the countryside. It used to help me, but I can imagine it may make it worse for others...
My guess is that it's a bit of both. A few months ago, we had a really excellent troll, who was able to chat on a range of subjects, and - sure - would always make sure to get Kremlin talking points in there, but was always interesting.
One thing that "impresses" me, is that they clearly keep files on various PB users. So, they all seem to know that (a) I used to work at Goldman Sachs, (b) I live in Los Angeles, and (c) I have a startup auto insurance business.
Recent Bond films are more gritty; Moore ones sillier; Brosnan ones seemed just stupid to me. Personally I have a fondness for the Dalton and Lazenby portrayals.
https://www.ft.com/content/135ab383-5df7-4824-bed5-1199e60a8597
"The British private investigator taking criminals to court when the state won’t"
Brosnan's first outing was decent, but went downhill fast. Several of his movies are simply unwatchable.
The Craig era has been inconsistent: Casino Royale is perhaps the best Bond movie. Quantum of Solace the least comprehensible. Skyfall had a fabulous baddie, and some great setpieces, but the Home Alone section was beyond poor. If you cut 40 minutes out of Spectre, it would be a decent movie. (And what a waste of Christoph Waltz!)
No Time To Die was good, if sentimental and overly long.
Quantum of Solace, Diamonds are Forever, and most of the later Brosnan movies.
Spectre is weighed down by an absurd side plot about Five Eyes intelligence sharing, but there's nothing wrong with the core. It's just there's 100 minutes of decent in a two and a half hour movie.
A Nevada computer scientist has gone to federal court to pursue the $5 million prize he is owed by MyPillow Chief Executive Mike Lindell following a ruling by private arbitrators last month.
The arbitrators found that Robert Zeidman deserved the money because he had successfully challenged data related to Lindell’s false claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen – and had thus won a contest Lindell had dubbed: “Prove Mike Wrong.”
In their April 19 decision, they gave Lindell’s firm, Lindell Management, 30 days to pay.
Since then, Lindell has not turned over any money, and on Thursday he asked a state court in Minnesota to vacate the award on the grounds that the arbitration panel had “exceeded its powers.”
Zeidman’s attorneys on Friday filed a petition in federal district court in Minnesota to force Lindell to pay the prize, plus interest of 10 percent a year.
They are asking a judge to confirm the legitimacy of the arbitrators’ award and to enter a $5 million judgment against Lindell’s firm. Such a judgment would empower Zeidman with stronger legal tools he could use to collect his winnings.
“There are no circumstances under which I’m letting him run away with that money,” said Brian Glasser, one of Zeidman’s attorneys.
Lindell said he would continue to fight to quash the arbitration award.
“It’s not about payment, it’s wrong. They’re just doing this trying to discredit the evidence and the evidence is all there,” he said in an interview Friday. “We’re taking it to court. It’s just all corrupt.”
Under federal and state law, a decision to vacate the award would require finding that the arbitrators had committed misconduct, exceeded their powers or that the process was otherwise corrupt.
The controversy grew out of an offer Lindell made ahead of a “cyber symposium” he held in August 2021 in South Dakota. In public and broadcast appearances, he claimed that he had data showing that the Chinese government had interfered with the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and he said he would pay a $5 million prize to any cyber expert who could prove that the material was not from that election.
Zeidman examined Lindell’s data and concluded that it did not substantiate Lindell’s claims of fraud and in fact had no connection to the 2020 election. In their decision, the arbitrators said Zeidman proved that Lindell’s material “unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data.”
Lindell has been one of the most stalwart and vocal proponents of former president Donald Trump’s false claims that voting machines were manipulated to steal the 2020 election.
Lindell faces a $1.3 billion defamation lawsuit from Dominion Voting Systems – the company that recently secured a historic settlement in a defamation case against Fox News – and another defamation lawsuit from a former Dominion executive. . . .
https://youtu.be/LE1evIbc3mw
I needed oxygen in the cinema when I first saw this scene.
The arrangement, which the home secretary sought after being caught speeding last summer, would have meant she would not have to attend an in-person course with other motorists, or an online one where her name and face would be visible on camera to other participants.
When the civil servants refused to help, she turned to a political aide who tried to persuade the course provider to agree to the arrangements.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-asked-civil-servants-to-help-her-dodge-speeding-fine-ckt0gcbnh
My guess is that his alleged defamer and obvious nutjob, is yet ANOTHER of Trump's henchpeople, enablers, etc., etc., who has been driven to moral, political and perhaps fiscal bankruptcy, due to their hooking their fortunes to those of the Sage of Mar-a-Lardo.
Fascinating wording in SNP announcement of an independence convention. If this characterisation of the convention is accurate, Sturgeon’s de facto referendum is officially dead.
https://twitter.com/KennyFarq/status/1659952780776288258
Trump knows he lost, but he cares only about how people see him, and he can't bear to be thought of as a loser. And therefore he pushed the story about fraud, because it made him not a loser.
And then Fox News amplified it, because it was what its viewers wanted to hear.
It's very sad. And I don't know what the answer is.
Or: see what I mean? Bloody civil servants not carrying out ministerial orders.
Unless it was on the M6 where those imbeciles at the HA keep putting up phantom speed limits for no reason.
In which case, Lock Them Both Up.
In fact, I'd say Timothy Dalton got closest to Fleming's Bond.
The answer to the first is presumably "someone who doesn't like Braverman being Home Secretary", but that doesn't narrow things down much.
Why? Because while they've no doubt brainwashed themselves, they did it on premise that retaining the White House for their Fearless Leader, would pay huge political AND financial dividends for . . . wait for it . . . the likes of Ginni Thomas and Mike Lindell.
Certainly nothing re: the careers of THESE two, gives the slightest confidence in their personal, professional and fiscal integrity. Quite the opposite.
Impending legal judgments amounting to millions against this clown, can NOT come too soon for me.
Goldeneye is still my favourite Bond film I think. Majestic comeback. But yep, some of the later Brosnan films were terrible.
I liked Quantum of Solace. I don't really get the hate for it.
For me the Craig era got worse after that, with the most recent effort the worst of a bad bunch. He is an excellent performer as Bond though imo. Best actor in the role isn't the same as best films.
The right course is to get your publicity in first, let it be known that you have been caught, like happens to us all, even archbishops, you are pleased you are allowed to take an awareness course, you hope you can learn from it and are joining in with all the other speeding punters.
Firstly, on the initial watch at least, it's incomprehensible. Why is Bond there? Who is he chasing? When you know the plot already, it kinda makes sense. But it's really hard to understand what's going on.
Secondly, the baddie... is... perhaps the least threatening baddie in the history of the Bond movies. My 15 year old daughter could beat the Dominic Greene character in a fight. He looks like he'd shy away from a harshly thrown word.
Plus, that fight scene near the start where they're swinging around fighting is pretty rubbish.
With that said, the action sequences are otherwise pretty good. I love the water angle. And the main female lead was great.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/may/20/polly-toynbee-what-my-privileged-start-in-life-taught-me-about-the-british-class-system
Unfortuneately, PeoplePolling have not published a poll since March, but as Savanta is polling weekly I have included them in the average. Since PeoplePolling was such an outlier, resulting in the average Conservative vote being around 1% less, the previous tables I posted before Easter are not comparable.
As can be seen, the Conservatives are back to their position at the start of March, before their short surge, whilst Labour has lost around 2% to the Lib Dems. Whether this will be maintained is unknown.
It is an interesting period piece though, with its glowing portrayal of Al Qaeda/The Taliban, who were seen as frightfully good chaps at that time.
If it's not too much trouble, can any PBer tell me how the company couldn't have just gone bankrupt, and other power companies stepped in to provide its customers with energy? It's not like the power cables would have ceased to exist, or that Bulb even had any of its own generating capacity? I mean wtf?
Some people say you should view it as a sort of Casino Royale Part 2, then it becomes clearer.
The West fueled Islamic Extremism in Soviet occupied Afghanistan, because that was the cheapest way to cause problems for the Russians. (See Rambo 3 and Charlie Wilson's War.)
Later, it came back to bite us.
The Lib Dems can make hay with this water issue. It's exactly the kind local/national and urban/rural issue that works for them, and Labour are being too timid on it.
I even think it must be a considerable part of their recent poll revival ; it seems also to have been central on their campaiging for the locals, for instance It also helps clearly differentiate them from a Tory outlook, once more, which is key to reviving their fortunes.
"Liberal Democrat MP Tim Farron denounced the billions going to shareholders as “absolutely scandalous” while families struggling with the cost of living would be facing increases in bills to pay for the sewage cleanup.
“The whole thing stinks,” said Farron, Lib Dem spokesperson on the environment. “This is their mess, they should be the ones to clean it up – not hard-working families.
“The Conservative government needs to stop sitting on their hands and force water companies to use their unearned and unjustified profits to fix the sewage crisis.”
According to analysis by David Hall, visiting professor at the public services international research unit at Greenwich University, dividend payments by the nine English water and sewerage companies, based on 2022 prices, will cost customers £624 each by 2030.
Hall examined annual dividends paid by companies between 2010 and 2022, which average £1.83bn a year. He said all companies have stated policies to reassure investors that they would get good dividends every year. “That implies a total of £14.67bn would be taken in dividends between 2023 and 2030.”
Alastair Chisholm, director of policy at the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management, said the high-profile announcement of massive investment in pipes, treatment works and water storage was a lot of spin. It had been forced on to water companies as a result of public outrage, which has driven the government and the regulator to take tougher action.
“The scale of this investment was known about, water companies know they have to vastly increase investment in storm overflows and treatment works to stay legally compliant because of the regulatory response to the public outcry,” said Chisholm.
“And it is the bill payers who are going to pay this huge amount.”
A spokesperson for Water UK said dividends acted as a return on overall investment into things like leaks and new supplies of water. They said the dividend yield in 2021-22 was 3.8%, below Ofwat’s assumption of 4%.
“If dividends weren’t paid then there would be no return and so no investment across all those things.
The government decides people* seeing 4-5x increases in their electricity prices would be bad for their electoral chances, and decided to splurge on keeping the contracts.
* Bulb customers
I don't trust Starmer, or Labour, but he at least seems to get the housing issue in this country. Sunak is merely playing up to his NIMBY supporters.
I'll probably vote Lib Dem at the next election, but if Starmer keeps talking about things like housing and not left-wing economics, then I could be very tempted to vote Labour for the first time since 2001.
What I like about it is the interesting storyline (water), which I find cuts quite close to the bone of real geopolitics, beautiful locations, beautiful women in strong parts, and more of the Bond elements returning to the franchise.
But, yes, it was unconscionable.
The WPA Intelligence poll tested the “generic ballot” — would you vote for a generic Republican or a generic Democrat for Congress? — with both DeSantis and Trump at the top of the ticket. While a Trump-led GOP was tied on the generic ballot (44 percent to 44 percent), a DeSantis-led one was ahead by five points (47-42)."
source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/05/20/desantis-trump-generic-ballot/
This would not be news to rational Republican leaders, but would be to some Republican voters.
(After the 2016 presidential election, I looked at the results in swing states and found evidence that Trump won those states because of "reverse coat tails". He was pulled over the line by more popular Republicans on the same ticket. He hasn't repaid them for that favor.)
But here's the other question Republican leaders need to ask themselves: would a defeated Trump throw his weight behind DeSantis, or would he cry that it was all rigged against him?