Including yesterday's announcement Andy Carter (Warrington North), we're already up to 47 MPs elected as Conservatives who won't be standing for the same/successor seat as a Conservative at the next general election. 38 are still sitting as Conservatives and are standing down out of choice, plus 4 who have been deselected, 4 who have lost the whip or been expelled, and 1 defector to Labour.
The comparable figure for the last parliament to run its full course (2015 GE) was 38 Conservatives. 22 of those stood down no more than one year before the 2015 general election.
So the numbers are well up and there's still a year to go. Many jumping to avoid the expected push?
I always wonder about this because my understanding is that the system essentially offers an incentive to be pushed rather than jump because there is a payment given out to incumbents who lose their seats, £10,000 iirc. I'd let the public kick a bucket of shit at me for one night at that price.
Jumping must make it a little easier to arrange future employment.
First real use case for electric flying passenger aircraft.
https://www.eetimes.com/amprius-high-density-batteries-go-aloft/ ...“Now they barely fly something like 15-20 minutes, of which about 4 minutes is the takeoff and then landing,” Amprius CTO Ionel Stefan told EE Times. “That’s a range of about 20 or 30 miles with the best flying cars—with batteries that are around 300 watthours per kilogram. With 400 to 500 watthours, this range can be extended to 100 to 200 miles. Imagine how much more application you can get from a flying car: those 20 miles, just a little hop, now going to 100 or 200 miles.” One likely location for trials is Silicon Valley, served by three international airports. “You have San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland,” Stefan predicted. “With a short aerial jump, you can get from one to another in 15 minutes at most. It will be much better than by car, which takes an hour or so.”..
...Amprius has developed a silicon-anode material.
“It is a lithium-ion battery in function,” Stefan said. “Silicon itself has a capacity that’s about 10 times as high as graphite in storing lithium. If we replace only this component, we are easily achieving anywhere between 80% to over 100% improvement over graphite.” One of the main advantages of silicon is that the anode is much thinner than with graphite, allowing very fast charging, Stefan said. “Pure silicon is very high capability, and we have demonstrated five-minute charging capability for some cell designs,” he added. In air transportation applications, batteries must charge quickly because vehicles will fly as many as 12 roundtrips each day, landing and departing in 15 minutes. Usually, one trip will consume one battery charge...
Point being that there's a virtuous circle: as energy density increases, the proportion of the charge required from the battery just to get its own weight aloft drops rapidly. Most internal UK flights could feasibly be electric powered within about a decade.
Long haul is going to be confined to dirigibles - though that could be interesting, since they also have a large surface area which could be covered with the newer lightweight, flexible solar panels...
First real use case for electric flying passenger aircraft.
https://www.eetimes.com/amprius-high-density-batteries-go-aloft/ ...“Now they barely fly something like 15-20 minutes, of which about 4 minutes is the takeoff and then landing,” Amprius CTO Ionel Stefan told EE Times. “That’s a range of about 20 or 30 miles with the best flying cars—with batteries that are around 300 watthours per kilogram. With 400 to 500 watthours, this range can be extended to 100 to 200 miles. Imagine how much more application you can get from a flying car: those 20 miles, just a little hop, now going to 100 or 200 miles.” One likely location for trials is Silicon Valley, served by three international airports. “You have San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland,” Stefan predicted. “With a short aerial jump, you can get from one to another in 15 minutes at most. It will be much better than by car, which takes an hour or so.”..
...Amprius has developed a silicon-anode material.
“It is a lithium-ion battery in function,” Stefan said. “Silicon itself has a capacity that’s about 10 times as high as graphite in storing lithium. If we replace only this component, we are easily achieving anywhere between 80% to over 100% improvement over graphite.” One of the main advantages of silicon is that the anode is much thinner than with graphite, allowing very fast charging, Stefan said. “Pure silicon is very high capability, and we have demonstrated five-minute charging capability for some cell designs,” he added. In air transportation applications, batteries must charge quickly because vehicles will fly as many as 12 roundtrips each day, landing and departing in 15 minutes. Usually, one trip will consume one battery charge...
"Luton 'stolen' house owner still fighting to get home back
A man is still fighting to get his house back more than a year since it was sold without his knowledge. Reverend Mike Hall previously told the BBC of his shock at returning to his Luton house and finding it stripped of all furnishings in August last year. He is still working to obtain compensation for the loss of his property and has been unable to regain formal ownership of his house. A Bedfordshire Police investigation remains ongoing."
What a story.
For Transfer of Title the selling party must have that title in the first place. They don't so surely that invalidates the sale.
I could not sell my neighbours car to someone and keep the money and them be deprived of the car.
I would like to know how it cost £37bn for a phone app that did not work.
That is enough to build 44 Type 26 frigates... (£4.2bn for 5 of them according to gov.uk)
FFS it didn't. Ever use a 'free' Covid test kit? That was from the 37 billion too. There are still people with hundreds of boxes of those kits in their houses. You could pick up two free boxes a day at the Uni and many did, every day, for months.
I don't understand why intelligent people still think the ap cost 37 billion.
The test kits were more than likely cost effective (though the ability to acquire such things without granting massive profit margins to middle men is something we should develop). Track and trace was a huge waste of money - and obviously so long before it was closed down.
I think track and trace was very effective in places like.Korea and.Taiwan. But it does require a high level of compliance. Not sure the application was mainly at fault here.
As I said upthread, there was certainly a case for it early on - but it was apparent, long before we stopped wasting money on it, that it wasn't going to work here.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
First real use case for electric flying passenger aircraft.
https://www.eetimes.com/amprius-high-density-batteries-go-aloft/ ...“Now they barely fly something like 15-20 minutes, of which about 4 minutes is the takeoff and then landing,” Amprius CTO Ionel Stefan told EE Times. “That’s a range of about 20 or 30 miles with the best flying cars—with batteries that are around 300 watthours per kilogram. With 400 to 500 watthours, this range can be extended to 100 to 200 miles. Imagine how much more application you can get from a flying car: those 20 miles, just a little hop, now going to 100 or 200 miles.” One likely location for trials is Silicon Valley, served by three international airports. “You have San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland,” Stefan predicted. “With a short aerial jump, you can get from one to another in 15 minutes at most. It will be much better than by car, which takes an hour or so.”..
...Amprius has developed a silicon-anode material.
“It is a lithium-ion battery in function,” Stefan said. “Silicon itself has a capacity that’s about 10 times as high as graphite in storing lithium. If we replace only this component, we are easily achieving anywhere between 80% to over 100% improvement over graphite.” One of the main advantages of silicon is that the anode is much thinner than with graphite, allowing very fast charging, Stefan said. “Pure silicon is very high capability, and we have demonstrated five-minute charging capability for some cell designs,” he added. In air transportation applications, batteries must charge quickly because vehicles will fly as many as 12 roundtrips each day, landing and departing in 15 minutes. Usually, one trip will consume one battery charge...
The FAA are still going to demand that they carry enough ‘fuel’ to go around at the destination, divert to the nominated alternate field (which must be clear of any forecast weather), go around there, and still be able to land with the required half an hour of endurance remaining.
Aviation (and possibly motorsport) is where the serious efforts into battery technology will go though. Batteries for cars will quickly become “good enough” to have a day’s driving range, and weight and volume are not as critical.
I’ve suggested before that Formula E racing should be based on prototype batteries, where the car weighs x plus the battery, and they should be prepared to put out a few fires in a relatively safe environment.
First real use case for electric flying passenger aircraft.
https://www.eetimes.com/amprius-high-density-batteries-go-aloft/ ...“Now they barely fly something like 15-20 minutes, of which about 4 minutes is the takeoff and then landing,” Amprius CTO Ionel Stefan told EE Times. “That’s a range of about 20 or 30 miles with the best flying cars—with batteries that are around 300 watthours per kilogram. With 400 to 500 watthours, this range can be extended to 100 to 200 miles. Imagine how much more application you can get from a flying car: those 20 miles, just a little hop, now going to 100 or 200 miles.” One likely location for trials is Silicon Valley, served by three international airports. “You have San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland,” Stefan predicted. “With a short aerial jump, you can get from one to another in 15 minutes at most. It will be much better than by car, which takes an hour or so.”..
...Amprius has developed a silicon-anode material.
“It is a lithium-ion battery in function,” Stefan said. “Silicon itself has a capacity that’s about 10 times as high as graphite in storing lithium. If we replace only this component, we are easily achieving anywhere between 80% to over 100% improvement over graphite.” One of the main advantages of silicon is that the anode is much thinner than with graphite, allowing very fast charging, Stefan said. “Pure silicon is very high capability, and we have demonstrated five-minute charging capability for some cell designs,” he added. In air transportation applications, batteries must charge quickly because vehicles will fly as many as 12 roundtrips each day, landing and departing in 15 minutes. Usually, one trip will consume one battery charge...
Fascinating. This is really interesting and the technology will only improve and get better.
What will also be interesting in the rush to net zero is the ideological battle between those who want to get to net zero and keep living as we do, just sustainably, and the Green/XR/JSO/Degrowth viewpoint that net zero must be used to reframe our system and move away from a capitalist model.
I am not sure who will win yet. It will be an interesting decade.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Older PBers will remember the Sport's front page being a Robin Cook mask, to help readers pull.
Talking of cover-ups, I notice the Telegraph aside, no other British media are touching the Guardian / FT sex pest enabling story. Amazing how fast some outlets are on things like CBI or Tescos, but fellow media travellers covering up terrible behaviour, no we never got our copy of the NY Times.
It is quite something that even the CHINESE are now slowly, reluctantly, coming round to the inevitable conclusion it came from the lab
Occam's Razor told us this back in Feb 2020 but oh well. Better late than never
I am trying to find an ounce of sympathy for the trillions of virologists who have fruitlessly wasted the last three years trying to prove it came from bats in the market, pangolins in Christmas soup, gay transexual marmosets dropped by parachute onto Wuhan, rather than the lab which was actually MAKING this virus in Wuhan, but I can't find it in me. They tried to hoodwink the public and bully us all into silence
PPE contracts ? A digital paper trail might be extraordinarily embarrassing.
I would hope that any criticism other PPE contracts might also include lists of companies that MPs from other parties criticised the government for not taking. You know, for context.
We should not lose sight of exactly how desperate things were at the time.
People saying this ignore the fact that many of these sweetheart deals for mates were signed well after the initial wave panic.
And you keep on saying that, and you ignore that there were other panics as well: like, for instance, the later lockdowns.
The government was pretty much in panic from March 2020 to March 2021. As were all of us. We needed PPE. Which would have been okay, except virtually every other country in the world needed PPE.
So why - when mates rates fail to deliver usable PPE - do we not claw back the money? Any boiler plate contract for anything has clauses about delivery - unless you are a mate of a Tory minister.
I am not that bothered about the lining of pockets where actually usable PPE was delivered. I am bothered when it was not - and we paid anyway. They have stolen - and it is stolen as they did not fulfil the contract - YOUR money. And you are fine with it. Why is that?
We desperately needed PPE and were willing to try anything to get it - just look at some of the companies *Labour* politicians were asking us to use as an example. If we had used normal procurement channels we would still be waiting - and people like Dr Foxy would have been placed in more danger.
The nearest parallel is a war. We were in a war, and we had to make decisions fast, with massive competition worldwide for a limited resource. There was waste, and there were charlatans. But the primary need was to get the kit. And we did - in fact, we ended up with too much. True fraudsters should be prosecuted.
It'd be interesting to know the percentages of all of this: how much was spent; how much was delivered, how much was usable etc. I think I've seen it somewhere before, but cannot immediately find it.
As I've said all through this hideous mess - I'm glad I'm not the one who had to make the decisions.
We're largely in agreement. I want the fraudsters done over. And the people who enabled the fraudsters.
Your war analogy is interesting though. It was a war, and we had established generals (PPE companies) with a track record of fighting wars.
We ignored them. And rang our mate who had heard of war but never done it. And put him in charge of fighting our war.
I'm not voting Labour so the whataboutery doesn't work on me. The government ignored the actual PPE companies and bet our lives on Lady Mone and Matt Hancocks pub landlord...
Did we ignore the 'established' generals? I assume these were the 'generals' Labour were going on about?
In which case, I might ask how CQM Learning was an 'established general' in the PPE market. Or Issa Exchange Ltd (and those are just two from Labour's press release).
The latter looks particularly interesting if you look at their 202 accounts...
I am also interested in the fact that we have the exact same system we had before - bio degradable, expendable plastic. You can't stockpile it for too long - because it starts to disintegrate.
This is combined with a collection of face shields and masks to create a barrier full of holes, for the medical staff. This means that if the next epidemic is truly airborne, it won't work.
Modern reusable gear exists - i've used some of it for welding toxic materials (Stainless Steel). But it seems that we have an institutional problem against using it. The latest stuff has features that answer the problems that made adopting the disposable stuff seem like a good idea.
Stockpiling should involve rotation of kit in and out of storage, not filling a warehouse and hoping everything still works ten years from now (cf the Russian military, and quite possibly our own).
The problem with rotation is the quantities involved.
From memory the UK was going through more stock of PPE per week than it would normally go through per year in normal circumstances. So how do you logistically rotate that?
So even if you rotate perfectly, you either need stuff stockpiled for ten years in normal circumstances, or you are going to run out of PPE within ten weeks.
That's why realistically if we're to have a usable stockpile that can get us through a pandemic, we need stocks that can be stored in a warehouse for years. Because we simply don't need that volume in normal circumstances.
Boat from China to warehouse. Warehouse to hospital. That's what the importers do. We just need to insert a stockpile between the two steps.
Much of the material has short shelf life.
How short is short though ? The "shelf life" is simply a recommended use by date. The material does not go off after that.
There is no reason why they cannot be used after expiration date after a risk assessment. Indeed that happened quite a bit and no reason why alternatives cannot be used that are more available after a similar process. Something my company did with its operations.
One thing the whole COVID issue showed is extended global supply chains cannot really operate on a just in time basis effectively.
A great deal of the PPE stuff is made from bio-degradable plastic. This degrades in storage. The French tried using stuff beyond the expired date and found it disintegrated when used.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Older PBers will remember the Sport's front page being a Robin Cook mask, to help readers pull.
He's a good example. Physically really quite unattractive. Yet he had an affair, and married, his fairly hot secretary - and had other affairs during his marriage
First real use case for electric flying passenger aircraft.
https://www.eetimes.com/amprius-high-density-batteries-go-aloft/ ...“Now they barely fly something like 15-20 minutes, of which about 4 minutes is the takeoff and then landing,” Amprius CTO Ionel Stefan told EE Times. “That’s a range of about 20 or 30 miles with the best flying cars—with batteries that are around 300 watthours per kilogram. With 400 to 500 watthours, this range can be extended to 100 to 200 miles. Imagine how much more application you can get from a flying car: those 20 miles, just a little hop, now going to 100 or 200 miles.” One likely location for trials is Silicon Valley, served by three international airports. “You have San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland,” Stefan predicted. “With a short aerial jump, you can get from one to another in 15 minutes at most. It will be much better than by car, which takes an hour or so.”..
...Amprius has developed a silicon-anode material.
“It is a lithium-ion battery in function,” Stefan said. “Silicon itself has a capacity that’s about 10 times as high as graphite in storing lithium. If we replace only this component, we are easily achieving anywhere between 80% to over 100% improvement over graphite.” One of the main advantages of silicon is that the anode is much thinner than with graphite, allowing very fast charging, Stefan said. “Pure silicon is very high capability, and we have demonstrated five-minute charging capability for some cell designs,” he added. In air transportation applications, batteries must charge quickly because vehicles will fly as many as 12 roundtrips each day, landing and departing in 15 minutes. Usually, one trip will consume one battery charge...
Fascinating. This is really interesting and the technology will only improve and get better.
What will also be interesting in the rush to net zero is the ideological battle between those who want to get to net zero and keep living as we do, just sustainably, and the Green/XR/JSO/Degrowth viewpoint that net zero must be used to reframe our system and move away from a capitalist model.
I am not sure who will win yet. It will be an interesting decade.
It is quite something that even the CHINESE are now slowly, reluctantly, coming round to the inevitable conclusion it came from the lab
Occam's Razor told us this back in Feb 2020 but oh well. Better late than never
I am trying to find an ounce of sympathy for the trillions of virologists who have fruitlessly wasted the last three years trying to prove it came from bats in the market, pangolins in Christmas soup, gay transexual marmosets dropped by parachute onto Wuhan, rather than the lab which was actually MAKING this virus in Wuhan, but I can't find it in me. They tried to hoodwink the public and bully us all into silence
They deserve trials in court, not sympathy
The recent Sam Harris podcast with Matt Ridley and Alina Chan on this was very interesting
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
This wit and charm thing seems to be quite male, or at least something that males tell themselves. Have you ever succumbed to a plain, fat lass because of her wit and charm?
First real use case for electric flying passenger aircraft.
https://www.eetimes.com/amprius-high-density-batteries-go-aloft/ ...“Now they barely fly something like 15-20 minutes, of which about 4 minutes is the takeoff and then landing,” Amprius CTO Ionel Stefan told EE Times. “That’s a range of about 20 or 30 miles with the best flying cars—with batteries that are around 300 watthours per kilogram. With 400 to 500 watthours, this range can be extended to 100 to 200 miles. Imagine how much more application you can get from a flying car: those 20 miles, just a little hop, now going to 100 or 200 miles.” One likely location for trials is Silicon Valley, served by three international airports. “You have San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland,” Stefan predicted. “With a short aerial jump, you can get from one to another in 15 minutes at most. It will be much better than by car, which takes an hour or so.”..
...Amprius has developed a silicon-anode material.
“It is a lithium-ion battery in function,” Stefan said. “Silicon itself has a capacity that’s about 10 times as high as graphite in storing lithium. If we replace only this component, we are easily achieving anywhere between 80% to over 100% improvement over graphite.” One of the main advantages of silicon is that the anode is much thinner than with graphite, allowing very fast charging, Stefan said. “Pure silicon is very high capability, and we have demonstrated five-minute charging capability for some cell designs,” he added. In air transportation applications, batteries must charge quickly because vehicles will fly as many as 12 roundtrips each day, landing and departing in 15 minutes. Usually, one trip will consume one battery charge...
Point being that there's a virtuous circle: as energy density increases, the proportion of the charge required from the battery just to get its own weight aloft drops rapidly. Most internal UK flights could feasibly be electric powered within about a decade.
Long haul is going to be confined to dirigibles - though that could be interesting, since they also have a large surface area which could be covered with the newer lightweight, flexible solar panels...
Lighter than air craft are extremely weather vulnerable and always will be.
Long range aviation will go to biofuel, fairly rapidly.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
Hence why multi millionaire Al Pacino is going to be a father again at 83 with his 29 year old girlfriend despite being old enough to be the child's great grandad let alone his father https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65764387
Including yesterday's announcement Andy Carter (Warrington North), we're already up to 47 MPs elected as Conservatives who won't be standing for the same/successor seat as a Conservative at the next general election. 38 are still sitting as Conservatives and are standing down out of choice, plus 4 who have been deselected, 4 who have lost the whip or been expelled, and 1 defector to Labour.
The comparable figure for the last parliament to run its full course (2015 GE) was 38 Conservatives. 22 of those stood down no more than one year before the 2015 general election.
So the numbers are well up and there's still a year to go. Many jumping to avoid the expected push?
To be pedantic it must be Warrington South because North is a Labour seat.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
This wit and charm thing seems to be quite male, or at least something that males tell themselves. Have you ever succumbed to a plain, fat lass because of her wit and charm?
Maybe once or twice, but - to be honest - not often
As I say, men are much more simplistic and visual - they want youth, fertility and beauty (because beauty signals good reproductive health = clear skin equals no diseases etc)
That said, women can be pretty simplistic and brutal as well. Try asking women if they would ever date someone shorter than themselves
It is quite something that even the CHINESE are now slowly, reluctantly, coming round to the inevitable conclusion it came from the lab
Occam's Razor told us this back in Feb 2020 but oh well. Better late than never
I am trying to find an ounce of sympathy for the trillions of virologists who have fruitlessly wasted the last three years trying to prove it came from bats in the market, pangolins in Christmas soup, gay transexual marmosets dropped by parachute onto Wuhan, rather than the lab which was actually MAKING this virus in Wuhan, but I can't find it in me. They tried to hoodwink the public and bully us all into silence
They deserve trials in court, not sympathy
Jon Stewart called it two years ago, to a very uncomfortable Stephen Colbert.
It is quite something that even the CHINESE are now slowly, reluctantly, coming round to the inevitable conclusion it came from the lab
Occam's Razor told us this back in Feb 2020 but oh well. Better late than never
I am trying to find an ounce of sympathy for the trillions of virologists who have fruitlessly wasted the last three years trying to prove it came from bats in the market, pangolins in Christmas soup, gay transexual marmosets dropped by parachute onto Wuhan, rather than the lab which was actually MAKING this virus in Wuhan, but I can't find it in me. They tried to hoodwink the public and bully us all into silence
They deserve trials in court, not sympathy
Jon Stewart called it two years ago, to a very uncomfortable Stephen Colbert.
It is quite something that even the CHINESE are now slowly, reluctantly, coming round to the inevitable conclusion it came from the lab
Occam's Razor told us this back in Feb 2020 but oh well. Better late than never
I am trying to find an ounce of sympathy for the trillions of virologists who have fruitlessly wasted the last three years trying to prove it came from bats in the market, pangolins in Christmas soup, gay transexual marmosets dropped by parachute onto Wuhan, rather than the lab which was actually MAKING this virus in Wuhan, but I can't find it in me. They tried to hoodwink the public and bully us all into silence
They deserve trials in court, not sympathy
Jon Stewart called it two years ago, to a very uncomfortable Stephen Colbert.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
This wit and charm thing seems to be quite male, or at least something that males tell themselves. Have you ever succumbed to a plain, fat lass because of her wit and charm?
Maybe once or twice, but - to be honest - not often
As I say, men are much more simplistic and visual - they want youth, fertility and beauty (because beauty signals good reproductive health = clear skin equals no diseases etc)
That said, women can be pretty simplistic and brutal as well. Try asking women if they would ever date someone shorter than themselves
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
This wit and charm thing seems to be quite male, or at least something that males tell themselves. Have you ever succumbed to a plain, fat lass because of her wit and charm?
Maybe once or twice, but - to be honest - not often
As I say, men are much more simplistic and visual - they want youth, fertility and beauty (because beauty signals good reproductive health = clear skin equals no diseases etc)
That said, women can be pretty simplistic and brutal as well. Try asking women if they would ever date someone shorter than themselves
It is quite something that even the CHINESE are now slowly, reluctantly, coming round to the inevitable conclusion it came from the lab
Occam's Razor told us this back in Feb 2020 but oh well. Better late than never
I am trying to find an ounce of sympathy for the trillions of virologists who have fruitlessly wasted the last three years trying to prove it came from bats in the market, pangolins in Christmas soup, gay transexual marmosets dropped by parachute onto Wuhan, rather than the lab which was actually MAKING this virus in Wuhan, but I can't find it in me. They tried to hoodwink the public and bully us all into silence
They deserve trials in court, not sympathy
Jon Stewart called it two years ago, to a very uncomfortable Stephen Colbert.
This will be the video that our kids and grandkids watch in two or three decades’ time, when they ask about what happened in 2020.
And they will be stupefied that for a year we weren't even allowed to DISCUSS the lab leak hypothesis on Twitter, Facebook
And Jon Stewart got labelled as a racist for that riff. Quite absurd
And of course the likes of the editor of the Lancet carry on as normal...nothing to see.....
His ongoing career is remarkable. He should have been sacked years ago. He should be in disgrace
Ditto Nature for publishing that outrageous paper Proximal Origins which tried to completely crush the Lab Leak hypothesis from the start: an overtly political move disguised as "science", which was so warped it basically lied outright
In private, some of the authors of the paper admitted that Lab Leak was highly feasible, if not entirely probable. But we only know this because researchers forced disclosure of their secret emails to each other
It is quite something that even the CHINESE are now slowly, reluctantly, coming round to the inevitable conclusion it came from the lab
Occam's Razor told us this back in Feb 2020 but oh well. Better late than never
I am trying to find an ounce of sympathy for the trillions of virologists who have fruitlessly wasted the last three years trying to prove it came from bats in the market, pangolins in Christmas soup, gay transexual marmosets dropped by parachute onto Wuhan, rather than the lab which was actually MAKING this virus in Wuhan, but I can't find it in me. They tried to hoodwink the public and bully us all into silence
They deserve trials in court, not sympathy
Jon Stewart called it two years ago, to a very uncomfortable Stephen Colbert.
This will be the video that our kids and grandkids watch in two or three decades’ time, when they ask about what happened in 2020.
And they will be stupefied that for a year we weren't even allowed to DISCUSS the lab leak hypothesis on Twitter, Facebook
And Jon Stewart got labelled as a racist for that riff. Quite absurd
And of course the likes of the editor of the Lancet carry on as normal...nothing to see.....
His ongoing career is remarkable. He should have been sacked years ago. He should be in disgrace
Ditto Nature for publishing that outrageous paper Proximal Origins which tried to completely crush the Lab Leak hypothesis from the start: an overtly political move disguised as "science", which was so warped it basically lied outright
In private, some of the authors of the paper admitted that Lab Leak was highly feasible, if not entirely probable. But we only know this because researchers forced disclosure of their secret emails to each other
I can never fathom how as editor of the premier medical journal you can multiple times bring yourself and the journal you edit into dispute and still remain editor. This isn't some tabloid newspaper making up stories of how many times some z-list celeb has cheated on their wife. I mean even the Mirror sacked their editor for making up fake "serious" stories.
Its absolutely mind blowing to me this is the case.
Including yesterday's announcement Andy Carter (Warrington North), we're already up to 47 MPs elected as Conservatives who won't be standing for the same/successor seat as a Conservative at the next general election. 38 are still sitting as Conservatives and are standing down out of choice, plus 4 who have been deselected, 4 who have lost the whip or been expelled, and 1 defector to Labour.
The comparable figure for the last parliament to run its full course (2015 GE) was 38 Conservatives. 22 of those stood down no more than one year before the 2015 general election.
So the numbers are well up and there's still a year to go. Many jumping to avoid the expected push?
Warrington South. If it were Warrington North, that would have been a near total wipeout of Labour.
Not surprised really that he's standing down, a snowball in hell would have about as much chance as the Tories holding onto Warrington South at this time, its a very narrow swing seat. In 2015 even the exit poll said the Tories would lose it but narrowly held on. The seat was lost in 2017 and regained in 2019.
But at least Mike Smithson's letter might get another outing next time now. This was one of the Tory/Lab swing seats in 2019 to get the infamous letter that the Lib Dems put Mike's name onto.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Older PBers will remember the Sport's front page being a Robin Cook mask, to help readers pull.
He's a good example. Physically really quite unattractive. Yet he had an affair, and married, his fairly hot secretary - and had other affairs during his marriage
Because Robin Cook was incredibly company - his son was at Uni the same time I was...
If he was still around he would be making a fortune doing the type of tour Tony Benn did after he retired from Parliament..
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
This wit and charm thing seems to be quite male, or at least something that males tell themselves. Have you ever succumbed to a plain, fat lass because of her wit and charm?
Still plausible as an instance of sexual selection (only male peacocks have the tails).
To rehash my recollection of Dawkins: sexual selection is typified by things like peacock tails evolving very quickly to ridiculous sizes. The characteristic selected for has no inherent survival value (a big tail doesn't make you better at building nests or finding peacock food) except it acquires one as a sort of second order effect, because it gets you and your sons laid and therefore perpetuates your genes. Human brain expansion happened so fast that there's a case to be made that it is a sexual selection thing, in which case Plato and Shakespeare and Einstein and all that stuff are mere epiphenomena resulting from stone age blokes talking women into bed.
Trans activitist who glued herself to the floor of Oxford Union yesterday in protest at Professor Stock's talk is also a republican who ignored a rope cordon around a bed at Windsor Castle used by Charles II to lie on it and embrace her partner while reading Spare. She has also taken part in anti Brexit and anti Trump marches, attended events with Greta Thunberg and her father is a wealthy businessman and Extinction Rebellion supporter.
It is quite something that even the CHINESE are now slowly, reluctantly, coming round to the inevitable conclusion it came from the lab
Occam's Razor told us this back in Feb 2020 but oh well. Better late than never
I am trying to find an ounce of sympathy for the trillions of virologists who have fruitlessly wasted the last three years trying to prove it came from bats in the market, pangolins in Christmas soup, gay transexual marmosets dropped by parachute onto Wuhan, rather than the lab which was actually MAKING this virus in Wuhan, but I can't find it in me. They tried to hoodwink the public and bully us all into silence
They deserve trials in court, not sympathy
Jon Stewart called it two years ago, to a very uncomfortable Stephen Colbert.
This will be the video that our kids and grandkids watch in two or three decades’ time, when they ask about what happened in 2020.
And they will be stupefied that for a year we weren't even allowed to DISCUSS the lab leak hypothesis on Twitter, Facebook
And Jon Stewart got labelled as a racist for that riff. Quite absurd
And of course the likes of the editor of the Lancet carry on as normal...nothing to see.....
His ongoing career is remarkable. He should have been sacked years ago. He should be in disgrace
Ditto Nature for publishing that outrageous paper Proximal Origins which tried to completely crush the Lab Leak hypothesis from the start: an overtly political move disguised as "science", which was so warped it basically lied outright
In private, some of the authors of the paper admitted that Lab Leak was highly feasible, if not entirely probable. But we only know this because researchers forced disclosure of their secret emails to each other
I can never fathom how as editor of the premier medical journal you can multiple times bring yourself and the journal you edit into dispute and still remain editor. This isn't some tabloid newspaper making up stories of how many times some z-list celeb has cheated on their wife. I mean even the Mirror sacked their editor for making up fake "serious" stories.
Its absolutely mind blowing to me this is the case.
Horton also has dubious links to China, personally, and via his owners
Perhaps that is what protects him, and others. Western Science has been bought by China. Sad
Trans activitist who glued herself to the floor of Oxford Union yesterday in protest at Professor Stock's talk is also a republican who ignored a rope cordon around a bed at Windsor Castle used by Charles II to lie on it and embrace her partner while reading Spare. She has also taken part in anti Brexit and anti Trump marches, attended events with Greta Thunberg and her father is a wealthy businessman and Extinction Rebellion supporter.
Talking of cover-ups, I notice the Telegraph aside, no other British media are touching the Guardian / FT sex pest enabling story. Amazing how fast some outlets are on things like CBI or Tescos, but fellow media travellers covering up terrible behaviour, no we never got our copy of the NY Times.
It depends what element of the media too.
If this was a Sun sex pest story the Grauniad would have been all over it. Which makes it all the more surprising they get treated with kid gloves in return.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
This wit and charm thing seems to be quite male, or at least something that males tell themselves. Have you ever succumbed to a plain, fat lass because of her wit and charm?
Still plausible as an instance of sexual selection (only male peacocks have the tails).
To rehash my recollection of Dawkins: sexual selection is typified by things like peacock tails evolving very quickly to ridiculous sizes. The characteristic selected for has no inherent survival value (a big tail doesn't make you better at building nests or finding peacock food) except it acquires one as a sort of second order effect, because it gets you and your sons laid and therefore perpetuates your genes. Human brain expansion happened so fast that there's a case to be made that it is a sexual selection thing, in which case Plato and Shakespeare and Einstein and all that stuff are mere epiphenomena resulting from stone age blokes talking women into bed.
Musical talent is another interesting one. Women are seriously attracted to men who can play music (even more than funny guys). I have learned this to my detriment, losing some hot chick to the guy who can do amazing things with a guitar, even if I was more amusing
Presumably there is some ev psych explanation, musical ability is another peacock's tail of male homo sapiens?
Talking of cover-ups, I notice the Telegraph aside, no other British media are touching the Guardian / FT sex pest enabling story. Amazing how fast some outlets are on things like CBI or Tescos, but fellow media travellers covering up terrible behaviour, no we never got our copy of the NY Times.
It depends what element of the media too.
If this was a Sun sex pest story the Grauniad would have been all over it. Which makes it all the more surprising they get treated with kid gloves in return.
Obviously the BBC are totally disinterested in this story......much more important stories about Rick Astley at Glasto to talk about.
If it was the Sun, there would now be wall to wall coverage, with the likes of Bad Al never off our screens demanding the paper be shut down immediately.
Talking of cover-ups, I notice the Telegraph aside, no other British media are touching the Guardian / FT sex pest enabling story. Amazing how fast some outlets are on things like CBI or Tescos, but fellow media travellers covering up terrible behaviour, no we never got our copy of the NY Times.
It depends what element of the media too.
If this was a Sun sex pest story the Grauniad would have been all over it. Which makes it all the more surprising they get treated with kid gloves in return.
Obviously the BBC are totally disinterested in this story......much more important stories about Rick Astley at Glasto to talk about.
If it was the Sun, there would now be wall to wall coverage, with the likes of Bad Al never off our screens demanding the paper be shut down immediately.
Trans activitist who glued herself to the floor of Oxford Union yesterday in protest at Professor Stock's talk is also a republican who ignored a rope cordon around a bed at Windsor Castle used by Charles II to lie on it and embrace her partner while reading Spare. She has also taken part in anti Brexit and anti Trump marches, attended events with Greta Thunberg and her father is a wealthy businessman and Extinction Rebellion supporter.
Talking of cover-ups, I notice the Telegraph aside, no other British media are touching the Guardian / FT sex pest enabling story. Amazing how fast some outlets are on things like CBI or Tescos, but fellow media travellers covering up terrible behaviour, no we never got our copy of the NY Times.
It depends what element of the media too.
If this was a Sun sex pest story the Grauniad would have been all over it. Which makes it all the more surprising they get treated with kid gloves in return.
Obviously the BBC are totally disinterested in this story......much more important stories about Rick Astley at Glasto to talk about.
If it was the Sun, there would now be wall to wall coverage, with the likes of Bad Al never off our screens demanding the paper be shut down immediately.
"I have loved the wind-up, but I reckon its time to let people know who I really am. And anyway, I'm sure an AI will be able to do all this in a few weeks."
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
This wit and charm thing seems to be quite male, or at least something that males tell themselves. Have you ever succumbed to a plain, fat lass because of her wit and charm?
Still plausible as an instance of sexual selection (only male peacocks have the tails).
To rehash my recollection of Dawkins: sexual selection is typified by things like peacock tails evolving very quickly to ridiculous sizes. The characteristic selected for has no inherent survival value (a big tail doesn't make you better at building nests or finding peacock food) except it acquires one as a sort of second order effect, because it gets you and your sons laid and therefore perpetuates your genes. Human brain expansion happened so fast that there's a case to be made that it is a sexual selection thing, in which case Plato and Shakespeare and Einstein and all that stuff are mere epiphenomena resulting from stone age blokes talking women into bed.
Surely a big tail comes with overall 'bigness' of bird. Male peacocks with big tails who can wobble them for a long time are bigger and stronger.
As for brain expansion, isn't that just that the thickest cavemen were clubbing themselves in the head and getting sat on by mammoths, so the cleverest survived and procreated?
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
This wit and charm thing seems to be quite male, or at least something that males tell themselves. Have you ever succumbed to a plain, fat lass because of her wit and charm?
Still plausible as an instance of sexual selection (only male peacocks have the tails).
To rehash my recollection of Dawkins: sexual selection is typified by things like peacock tails evolving very quickly to ridiculous sizes. The characteristic selected for has no inherent survival value (a big tail doesn't make you better at building nests or finding peacock food) except it acquires one as a sort of second order effect, because it gets you and your sons laid and therefore perpetuates your genes. Human brain expansion happened so fast that there's a case to be made that it is a sexual selection thing, in which case Plato and Shakespeare and Einstein and all that stuff are mere epiphenomena resulting from stone age blokes talking women into bed.
Surely a big tail comes with overall 'bigness' of bird. Male peacocks with bog tails who can wobble them for a long time are bigger and stronger.
As for brain expansion, isn't that just that the thickest cavemen were clubbing themselves in the head and getting sat on by mammoths, so the cleverest survived and procreated?
Not necessarily. Brains are extremely expensive metabolically. As is overall size alone.
And yet plain fat lasses (speaking as someone who would never win an award for Sylph-Like Beauty of the Year) do manage to acquire wonderful lovers and handsome husbands. So I will put it down to extensive legal knowledge then ..... not my creamy Irish skin and dark hair.
"The man behind the Secret Tory account on Twitter has unmasked himself as personal trainer Henry Morris.
The parody account has built up nearly 200,000 followers since its launch in 2019, with its anonymous writer publishing a book last year.
Followers have speculated that the person behind the account is a high-profile comedian or a real-life MP.
But Morris is in fact a personal trainer and ultra marathon runner from Yorkshire, who now lives in Wales.
Morris puts on amateur Shakespeare productions in Wales every year, is behind the Field Maneuvers rave in Norfolk and is a campaigner to end raptor persecution on grouse moors with Chris Packham's Wild Justice group."
"The man behind the Secret Tory account on Twitter has unmasked himself as personal trainer Henry Morris.
The parody account has built up nearly 200,000 followers since its launch in 2019, with its anonymous writer publishing a book last year.
Followers have speculated that the person behind the account is a high-profile comedian or a real-life MP.
But Morris is in fact a personal trainer and ultra marathon runner from Yorkshire, who now lives in Wales.
Morris puts on amateur Shakespeare productions in Wales every year, is behind the Field Maneuvers rave in Norfolk and is a campaigner to end raptor persecution on grouse moors with Chris Packham's Wild Justice group."
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
This wit and charm thing seems to be quite male, or at least something that males tell themselves. Have you ever succumbed to a plain, fat lass because of her wit and charm?
Still plausible as an instance of sexual selection (only male peacocks have the tails).
To rehash my recollection of Dawkins: sexual selection is typified by things like peacock tails evolving very quickly to ridiculous sizes. The characteristic selected for has no inherent survival value (a big tail doesn't make you better at building nests or finding peacock food) except it acquires one as a sort of second order effect, because it gets you and your sons laid and therefore perpetuates your genes. Human brain expansion happened so fast that there's a case to be made that it is a sexual selection thing, in which case Plato and Shakespeare and Einstein and all that stuff are mere epiphenomena resulting from stone age blokes talking women into bed.
Surely a big tail comes with overall 'bigness' of bird. Male peacocks with bog tails who can wobble them for a long time are bigger and stronger.
As for brain expansion, isn't that just that the thickest cavemen were clubbing themselves in the head and getting sat on by mammoths, so the cleverest survived and procreated?
Not necessarily. Brains are extremely expensive metabolically. As is overall size alone.
But I am extremely smart AND have a tendency to run to fat unless I exercise regularly.
Dr Ranj Singh of “This Morning” fame, please explain.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
This wit and charm thing seems to be quite male, or at least something that males tell themselves. Have you ever succumbed to a plain, fat lass because of her wit and charm?
Still plausible as an instance of sexual selection (only male peacocks have the tails).
To rehash my recollection of Dawkins: sexual selection is typified by things like peacock tails evolving very quickly to ridiculous sizes. The characteristic selected for has no inherent survival value (a big tail doesn't make you better at building nests or finding peacock food) except it acquires one as a sort of second order effect, because it gets you and your sons laid and therefore perpetuates your genes. Human brain expansion happened so fast that there's a case to be made that it is a sexual selection thing, in which case Plato and Shakespeare and Einstein and all that stuff are mere epiphenomena resulting from stone age blokes talking women into bed.
Surely a big tail comes with overall 'bigness' of bird. Male peacocks with bog tails who can wobble them for a long time are bigger and stronger.
As for brain expansion, isn't that just that the thickest cavemen were clubbing themselves in the head and getting sat on by mammoths, so the cleverest survived and procreated?
Not necessarily. Brains are extremely expensive metabolically. As is overall size alone.
First real use case for electric flying passenger aircraft.
https://www.eetimes.com/amprius-high-density-batteries-go-aloft/ ...“Now they barely fly something like 15-20 minutes, of which about 4 minutes is the takeoff and then landing,” Amprius CTO Ionel Stefan told EE Times. “That’s a range of about 20 or 30 miles with the best flying cars—with batteries that are around 300 watthours per kilogram. With 400 to 500 watthours, this range can be extended to 100 to 200 miles. Imagine how much more application you can get from a flying car: those 20 miles, just a little hop, now going to 100 or 200 miles.” One likely location for trials is Silicon Valley, served by three international airports. “You have San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland,” Stefan predicted. “With a short aerial jump, you can get from one to another in 15 minutes at most. It will be much better than by car, which takes an hour or so.”..
...Amprius has developed a silicon-anode material.
“It is a lithium-ion battery in function,” Stefan said. “Silicon itself has a capacity that’s about 10 times as high as graphite in storing lithium. If we replace only this component, we are easily achieving anywhere between 80% to over 100% improvement over graphite.” One of the main advantages of silicon is that the anode is much thinner than with graphite, allowing very fast charging, Stefan said. “Pure silicon is very high capability, and we have demonstrated five-minute charging capability for some cell designs,” he added. In air transportation applications, batteries must charge quickly because vehicles will fly as many as 12 roundtrips each day, landing and departing in 15 minutes. Usually, one trip will consume one battery charge...
First real use case for electric flying passenger aircraft.
https://www.eetimes.com/amprius-high-density-batteries-go-aloft/ ...“Now they barely fly something like 15-20 minutes, of which about 4 minutes is the takeoff and then landing,” Amprius CTO Ionel Stefan told EE Times. “That’s a range of about 20 or 30 miles with the best flying cars—with batteries that are around 300 watthours per kilogram. With 400 to 500 watthours, this range can be extended to 100 to 200 miles. Imagine how much more application you can get from a flying car: those 20 miles, just a little hop, now going to 100 or 200 miles.” One likely location for trials is Silicon Valley, served by three international airports. “You have San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland,” Stefan predicted. “With a short aerial jump, you can get from one to another in 15 minutes at most. It will be much better than by car, which takes an hour or so.”..
...Amprius has developed a silicon-anode material.
“It is a lithium-ion battery in function,” Stefan said. “Silicon itself has a capacity that’s about 10 times as high as graphite in storing lithium. If we replace only this component, we are easily achieving anywhere between 80% to over 100% improvement over graphite.” One of the main advantages of silicon is that the anode is much thinner than with graphite, allowing very fast charging, Stefan said. “Pure silicon is very high capability, and we have demonstrated five-minute charging capability for some cell designs,” he added. In air transportation applications, batteries must charge quickly because vehicles will fly as many as 12 roundtrips each day, landing and departing in 15 minutes. Usually, one trip will consume one battery charge...
Donald Trump will have to sell his Turnberry golf resort before the Scottish course is considered for another Open Championship.
The 45th US president has been lobbying for his Ayrshire venue to be picked again, saying this month that “everybody wants to see the Open Championship here”.
However, insiders close to the R&A, the company which runs golf’s original championship, confirmed he is facing rejection again, with organisers adamant he will not be considered. Trump was told he was unlikely to get an Open after the US Capitol attack in January 2021. One source said the position remained just as robust as it did then due to the perceived security risk from potential protests.
The 151st Open takes place this summer at Royal Liverpool from July 16. But Trump, who is seen as likely to be the Republican nominee for a potential second stint in the White House, has been talking up relations with the R&A in recent months. In an interview with GB News during his last visit to the course on May 3, he said he had “spent a tremendous amount of money” redeveloping the course following advice from former chief executive of The R&A, Peter Dawson.
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
And yet plain fat lasses (speaking as someone who would never win an award for Sylph-Like Beauty of the Year) do manage to acquire wonderful lovers and handsome husbands. So I will put it down to extensive legal knowledge then ..... not my creamy Irish skin and dark hair.
You win the 2023 PB title of Excessively Modest Poster of the Year (previous holder TSE.)
Talking of cover-ups, I notice the Telegraph aside, no other British media are touching the Guardian / FT sex pest enabling story. Amazing how fast some outlets are on things like CBI or Tescos, but fellow media travellers covering up terrible behaviour, no we never got our copy of the NY Times.
It depends what element of the media too.
If this was a Sun sex pest story the Grauniad would have been all over it. Which makes it all the more surprising they get treated with kid gloves in return.
Obviously the BBC are totally disinterested in this story......much more important stories about Rick Astley at Glasto to talk about.
If it was the Sun, there would now be wall to wall coverage, with the likes of Bad Al never off our screens demanding the paper be shut down immediately.
"I have loved the wind-up, but I reckon its time to let people know who I really am. And anyway, I'm sure an AI will be able to do all this in a few weeks."
It is certainly quite an achievement to look and sound even more of a twat than Mark Francois.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
This wit and charm thing seems to be quite male, or at least something that males tell themselves. Have you ever succumbed to a plain, fat lass because of her wit and charm?
Still plausible as an instance of sexual selection (only male peacocks have the tails).
To rehash my recollection of Dawkins: sexual selection is typified by things like peacock tails evolving very quickly to ridiculous sizes. The characteristic selected for has no inherent survival value (a big tail doesn't make you better at building nests or finding peacock food) except it acquires one as a sort of second order effect, because it gets you and your sons laid and therefore perpetuates your genes. Human brain expansion happened so fast that there's a case to be made that it is a sexual selection thing, in which case Plato and Shakespeare and Einstein and all that stuff are mere epiphenomena resulting from stone age blokes talking women into bed.
Musical talent is another interesting one. Women are seriously attracted to men who can play music (even more than funny guys). I have learned this to my detriment, losing some hot chick to the guy who can do amazing things with a guitar, even if I was more amusing
Presumably there is some ev psych explanation, musical ability is another peacock's tail of male homo sapiens?
Smug American guitar playing folksy bastards with their white teeth stealing the girl I had an eye on? `No... never happened to me.
First real use case for electric flying passenger aircraft.
https://www.eetimes.com/amprius-high-density-batteries-go-aloft/ ...“Now they barely fly something like 15-20 minutes, of which about 4 minutes is the takeoff and then landing,” Amprius CTO Ionel Stefan told EE Times. “That’s a range of about 20 or 30 miles with the best flying cars—with batteries that are around 300 watthours per kilogram. With 400 to 500 watthours, this range can be extended to 100 to 200 miles. Imagine how much more application you can get from a flying car: those 20 miles, just a little hop, now going to 100 or 200 miles.” One likely location for trials is Silicon Valley, served by three international airports. “You have San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland,” Stefan predicted. “With a short aerial jump, you can get from one to another in 15 minutes at most. It will be much better than by car, which takes an hour or so.”..
...Amprius has developed a silicon-anode material.
“It is a lithium-ion battery in function,” Stefan said. “Silicon itself has a capacity that’s about 10 times as high as graphite in storing lithium. If we replace only this component, we are easily achieving anywhere between 80% to over 100% improvement over graphite.” One of the main advantages of silicon is that the anode is much thinner than with graphite, allowing very fast charging, Stefan said. “Pure silicon is very high capability, and we have demonstrated five-minute charging capability for some cell designs,” he added. In air transportation applications, batteries must charge quickly because vehicles will fly as many as 12 roundtrips each day, landing and departing in 15 minutes. Usually, one trip will consume one battery charge...
For those who were worried - and I can't imagine anyone was - my F key is now working again.
Turn the laprop/computer off, hold it/the keyboard upside down, shake it, turn back on. If that fails, get a paintbrush from B&Q and brush against the keys. If that fails, there are comp firms who clean/repair these things.
First real use case for electric flying passenger aircraft.
https://www.eetimes.com/amprius-high-density-batteries-go-aloft/ ...“Now they barely fly something like 15-20 minutes, of which about 4 minutes is the takeoff and then landing,” Amprius CTO Ionel Stefan told EE Times. “That’s a range of about 20 or 30 miles with the best flying cars—with batteries that are around 300 watthours per kilogram. With 400 to 500 watthours, this range can be extended to 100 to 200 miles. Imagine how much more application you can get from a flying car: those 20 miles, just a little hop, now going to 100 or 200 miles.” One likely location for trials is Silicon Valley, served by three international airports. “You have San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland,” Stefan predicted. “With a short aerial jump, you can get from one to another in 15 minutes at most. It will be much better than by car, which takes an hour or so.”..
...Amprius has developed a silicon-anode material.
“It is a lithium-ion battery in function,” Stefan said. “Silicon itself has a capacity that’s about 10 times as high as graphite in storing lithium. If we replace only this component, we are easily achieving anywhere between 80% to over 100% improvement over graphite.” One of the main advantages of silicon is that the anode is much thinner than with graphite, allowing very fast charging, Stefan said. “Pure silicon is very high capability, and we have demonstrated five-minute charging capability for some cell designs,” he added. In air transportation applications, batteries must charge quickly because vehicles will fly as many as 12 roundtrips each day, landing and departing in 15 minutes. Usually, one trip will consume one battery charge...
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
Indeed. And it's not obvious to me that that's any better or worse than the implied 'approved' metric of being good-looking.
Well, exactly
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
This wit and charm thing seems to be quite male, or at least something that males tell themselves. Have you ever succumbed to a plain, fat lass because of her wit and charm?
Still plausible as an instance of sexual selection (only male peacocks have the tails).
To rehash my recollection of Dawkins: sexual selection is typified by things like peacock tails evolving very quickly to ridiculous sizes. The characteristic selected for has no inherent survival value (a big tail doesn't make you better at building nests or finding peacock food) except it acquires one as a sort of second order effect, because it gets you and your sons laid and therefore perpetuates your genes. Human brain expansion happened so fast that there's a case to be made that it is a sexual selection thing, in which case Plato and Shakespeare and Einstein and all that stuff are mere epiphenomena resulting from stone age blokes talking women into bed.
Surely a big tail comes with overall 'bigness' of bird. Male peacocks with bog tails who can wobble them for a long time are bigger and stronger.
As for brain expansion, isn't that just that the thickest cavemen were clubbing themselves in the head and getting sat on by mammoths, so the cleverest survived and procreated?
Not necessarily. Brains are extremely expensive metabolically. As is overall size alone.
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
He obviously fails to realise the UK and Russia were allies against the French in the War of Austrian Succession, 7 Years War and Napoleonic Wars and against the Germans in WW1 and Nazis in WW2. Hardly 'eternal enemies'
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
I am sure it works for some, while quite a large number would recognise him for what he is - an extremely overweight bullshitting twat
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
I am sure it works for some, while quite a large number would recognise him for what he is - an extremely overweight bullshitting twat
For those who were worried - and I can't imagine anyone was - my F key is now working again.
Turn the laprop/computer off, hold it/the keyboard upside down, shake it, turn back on. If that fails, get a paintbrush from B&Q and brush against the keys. If that fails, there are comp firms who clean/repair these things.
Careful spray with one of those cans of compressed air can also help shift whatever bit of crud has got in under the keycap.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
I am sure it works for some, while quite a large number would recognise him for what he is - an extremely overweight bullshitting twat
It is all muscle.
I'm now nostalgic for the Johnson/muscle-to-fat threads...
There seems to be a Twitter belief that he wasn't ever that ill with covid. I have no way of knowing, but I think he was probably ill enough to need oxygen, which in my eyes is pretty ill. Not sure why some refuse to belief that he could have been properly ill.
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
He obviously fails to realise the UK and Russia were allies against the French in the War of Austrian Succession, 7 Years War and Napoleonic Wars and against the Germans in WW1 and Nazis in WW2. Hardly 'eternal enemies'
No in the Seven Years' War they fought with the French and Austrians against us and the Prussians despite a bizarre switch at the end. In the Napoleonic Wars they came to terms with France and ended trade with us until Napoleon attacked them. Also in WW2 they helped the Nazis until Hitler stabbed them in the back. And in WW1 they pulled out and left us and the French to face the Germans.
They may not be eternal enemies, but they are hardly natural allies either.
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
He obviously fails to realise the UK and Russia were allies against the French in the War of Austrian Succession, 7 Years War and Napoleonic Wars and against the Germans in WW1 and Nazis in WW2. Hardly 'eternal enemies'
No in the Seven Years' War they fought with the French and Austrians against us and the Prussians despite a bizarre switch at the end. Also in WW2 they helped the Nazis until Hitler stabbed them in the back. And in WW1 they pulled out and left us and the French to face the Germans.
They may not be eternal enemies, but they are hardly natural allies either.
They were still allies at the end once Tsar Peter III replaced the Empress Elizabeth. In WW2 they fought with us 2 and obviously Nazi losses in their 1941 invasion of the USSR and the Russian liberation of Eastern Europe was pivotal to Allied victory overall. In WW1 they still fought with us against the Germans until 1917
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
I am sure it works for some, while quite a large number would recognise him for what he is - an extremely overweight bullshitting twat
It is all muscle.
I'm now nostalgic for the Johnson/muscle-to-fat threads...
There seems to be a Twitter belief that he wasn't ever that ill with covid. I have no way of knowing, but I think he was probably ill enough to need oxygen, which in my eyes is pretty ill. Not sure why some refuse to belief that he could have been properly ill.
There's an interesting crossover between the people who think he was never that ill and the people who think covid is a virtual death sentence.
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
He obviously fails to realise the UK and Russia were allies against the French in the War of Austrian Succession, 7 Years War and Napoleonic Wars and against the Germans in WW1 and Nazis in WW2. Hardly 'eternal enemies'
No in the Seven Years' War they fought with the French and Austrians against us and the Prussians despite a bizarre switch at the end. In the Napoleonic Wars they came to terms with France and ended trade with us until Napoleon attacked them. Also in WW2 they helped the Nazis until Hitler stabbed them in the back. And in WW1 they pulled out and left us and the French to face the Germans.
They may not be eternal enemies, but they are hardly natural allies either.
We have done them dirty too on occasion - not giving refuge to the Romanovs was pretty indefensible.
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
For those who were worried - and I can't imagine anyone was - my F key is now working again.
Turn the laprop/computer off, hold it/the keyboard upside down, shake it, turn back on. If that fails, get a paintbrush from B&Q and brush against the keys. If that fails, there are comp firms who clean/repair these things.
Careful spray with one of those cans of compressed air can also help shift whatever bit of crud has got in under the keycap.
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
He obviously fails to realise the UK and Russia were allies against the French in the War of Austrian Succession, 7 Years War and Napoleonic Wars and against the Germans in WW1 and Nazis in WW2. Hardly 'eternal enemies'
No in the Seven Years' War they fought with the French and Austrians against us and the Prussians despite a bizarre switch at the end. In the Napoleonic Wars they came to terms with France and ended trade with us until Napoleon attacked them. Also in WW2 they helped the Nazis until Hitler stabbed them in the back. And in WW1 they pulled out and left us and the French to face the Germans.
They may not be eternal enemies, but they are hardly natural allies either.
We have done them dirty too on occasion - not giving refuge to the Romanovs was pretty indefensible.
George V did, which is why you can never trust the royals.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
I am sure it works for some, while quite a large number would recognise him for what he is - an extremely overweight bullshitting twat
It is all muscle.
I'm now nostalgic for the Johnson/muscle-to-fat threads...
There seems to be a Twitter belief that he wasn't ever that ill with covid. I have no way of knowing, but I think he was probably ill enough to need oxygen, which in my eyes is pretty ill. Not sure why some refuse to belief that he could have been properly ill.
Why do otherwise intelligent people waste their time and rot their brains with Twitter and its "beliefs"?
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
He obviously fails to realise the UK and Russia were allies against the French in the War of Austrian Succession, 7 Years War and Napoleonic Wars and against the Germans in WW1 and Nazis in WW2. Hardly 'eternal enemies'
No in the Seven Years' War they fought with the French and Austrians against us and the Prussians despite a bizarre switch at the end. In the Napoleonic Wars they came to terms with France and ended trade with us until Napoleon attacked them. Also in WW2 they helped the Nazis until Hitler stabbed them in the back. And in WW1 they pulled out and left us and the French to face the Germans.
They may not be eternal enemies, but they are hardly natural allies either.
We have done them dirty too on occasion - not giving refuge to the Romanovs was pretty indefensible.
George V did, which is why you can never trust the royals.
Well, I don't know much about the history of the event, and yes, the Government probably deferred to him as it was a Royal issue, but we were already a constitutional monarchy at that point.
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
He obviously fails to realise the UK and Russia were allies against the French in the War of Austrian Succession, 7 Years War and Napoleonic Wars and against the Germans in WW1 and Nazis in WW2. Hardly 'eternal enemies'
No in the Seven Years' War they fought with the French and Austrians against us and the Prussians despite a bizarre switch at the end. In the Napoleonic Wars they came to terms with France and ended trade with us until Napoleon attacked them. Also in WW2 they helped the Nazis until Hitler stabbed them in the back. And in WW1 they pulled out and left us and the French to face the Germans.
They may not be eternal enemies, but they are hardly natural allies either.
We have done them dirty too on occasion - not giving refuge to the Romanovs was pretty indefensible.
George V did, which is why you can never trust the royals.
Only because he was wary of revolution over here if he harboured his cousin and with the rising Labour Party here. It was actually Queen Mary who made the final decision. She was right, by the end of 1918 Russia and Germany and Austria had all lost their monarchies, joining France which had removed its monarchy in the late 18th century. Italy would become a republic too at the end of WW2 leaving the UK the only major European nation still with a monarchy until Spain restored its monarchy on a constitutional basis like ours after Franco in the 1970s (plus the smaller Scandinavian and Benelux nations).
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
He obviously fails to realise the UK and Russia were allies against the French in the War of Austrian Succession, 7 Years War and Napoleonic Wars and against the Germans in WW1 and Nazis in WW2. Hardly 'eternal enemies'
No in the Seven Years' War they fought with the French and Austrians against us and the Prussians despite a bizarre switch at the end. In the Napoleonic Wars they came to terms with France and ended trade with us until Napoleon attacked them. Also in WW2 they helped the Nazis until Hitler stabbed them in the back. And in WW1 they pulled out and left us and the French to face the Germans.
They may not be eternal enemies, but they are hardly natural allies either.
We have done them dirty too on occasion - not giving refuge to the Romanovs was pretty indefensible.
George V did, which is why you can never trust the royals.
Only because he was wary of revolution over here if he harboured his cousin and with the rising Labour Party here. It was actually Queen Mary who made the final decision. She was right, by the end of 1918 Russia and Germany and Austria had all lost their monarchies, joining France which had removed its monarchy in the late 18th century. Italy would become a republic too at the end of WW2 leaving the UK the only major European nation still with a monarchy until Spain restored its monarchy on a constitutional basis like ours after Franco in the 1970s (plus the smaller Scandinavian and Benelux nations).
The British royals sacrificed their own family to keep their own arses on the throne.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
I am sure it works for some, while quite a large number would recognise him for what he is - an extremely overweight bullshitting twat
It is all muscle.
I'm now nostalgic for the Johnson/muscle-to-fat threads...
There seems to be a Twitter belief that he wasn't ever that ill with covid. I have no way of knowing, but I think he was probably ill enough to need oxygen, which in my eyes is pretty ill. Not sure why some refuse to belief that he could have been properly ill.
I am feeling your love for Johnson.
It has never dawned on me to doubt Johnson was knocking on Heaven's door during COVID. In fact he was so cavalier I would have been more doubtful if he claimed to never have caught COVID.
Nonetheless as someone of a similar age to Johnson, I can tell the difference between fat and muscle. Johnson is thus certified (by me) as dangerously obese. The seriously obese were also susceptible to dangerous COVID symptom elevation.
If merely sloth and gluttony were Johnson's only deadly sins.
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
He obviously fails to realise the UK and Russia were allies against the French in the War of Austrian Succession, 7 Years War and Napoleonic Wars and against the Germans in WW1 and Nazis in WW2. Hardly 'eternal enemies'
No in the Seven Years' War they fought with the French and Austrians against us and the Prussians despite a bizarre switch at the end. In the Napoleonic Wars they came to terms with France and ended trade with us until Napoleon attacked them. Also in WW2 they helped the Nazis until Hitler stabbed them in the back. And in WW1 they pulled out and left us and the French to face the Germans.
They may not be eternal enemies, but they are hardly natural allies either.
We have done them dirty too on occasion - not giving refuge to the Romanovs was pretty indefensible.
George V did, which is why you can never trust the royals.
Only because he was wary of revolution over here if he harboured his cousin and with the rising Labour Party here. It was actually Queen Mary who made the final decision. She was right, by the end of 1918 Russia and Germany and Austria had all lost their monarchies, joining France which had removed its monarchy in the late 18th century. Italy would become a republic too at the end of WW2 leaving the UK the only major European nation still with a monarchy until Spain restored its monarchy on a constitutional basis like ours after Franco in the 1970s (plus the smaller Scandinavian and Benelux nations).
I doubt the British Monarchy was in that much bother - I do wonder if they could have found some compromise. Given them refuge in the Falklands or something.
Black people were three times more likely to receive Covid fines in England and Wales
Exclusive: those in poorest areas were seven times more likely to be fined, says research into how police used emergency pandemic powers
Fines during the pandemic were three times more likely to be given to black people and seven times more likely to be issued in the poorest areas, research commissioned for Britain’s police chiefs has revealed.
The study covering England and Wales showed racial disparity for every single force. In one area, ethnic minorities were up to eight times more likely to be fined. It presents further evidence of ethnic disparity in the use of police powers. Most forces deny they are institutionally racist, as does the government.
The report was commissioned by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and conducted by academics at the University of Edinburgh. The NPPC did not publish the findings, to the surprise of those who produced it....
..The study looked at the period from 27 March 2020 to 31 May 2021, when 122,506 fines were issued. In England, ethnic minority people were on average more than twice as likely than white people to be fined, with the rate even higher for black people. .
The study said: “In England, the rate of FPNs per 10,000 people from an ethnic minority background was 46.1, compared to 19.9 for white individuals, reflecting an ethnic disparity rate of 2.3.
“The ethnic disparity rate in England was highest for people from a black ethnic background, who were 3.2 times more likely to be issued with an FPN.”
In Wales the ethnic disparity was 2.8 times for ethnic minorities, and virtually identical for black people.
The report’s co-author Prof Susan McVie said: “There was not a single force area that did not have a higher disparity rate for ethnic minority groups.”
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
I am sure it works for some, while quite a large number would recognise him for what he is - an extremely overweight bullshitting twat
It is all muscle.
I'm now nostalgic for the Johnson/muscle-to-fat threads...
There seems to be a Twitter belief that he wasn't ever that ill with covid. I have no way of knowing, but I think he was probably ill enough to need oxygen, which in my eyes is pretty ill. Not sure why some refuse to belief that he could have been properly ill.
I am feeling your love for Johnson.
It has never dawned on me to doubt Johnson was knocking on Heaven's door during COVID. In fact he was so cavalier I would have been more doubtful if he claimed to never have caught COVID.
Nonetheless as someone of a similar age to Johnson, I can tell the difference between fat and muscle. Johnson is thus certified (by me) as dangerously obese. The seriously obese were also susceptible to dangerous COVID symptom elevation.
If merely sloth and gluttony were Johnson's only deadly sins.
I have no love for Johnson. He is also clearly carrying rather a lot of fat. Much debate in recent years over the possibility of being fat and fit, but the outcome seems to be, you can be relatively fit whilst overweight, but you would always be better off if you lost the weight as well.
Wagner chief says 'crimes' committed by Russian officials before and during invasion should be investigated
The head of the Russian mercenary group Wagner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, has said he has asked prosecutors to investigate “crimes” committed by senior Russian defence officials before and during the country’s invasion of Ukraine.
Prigozhin openly feuded with the Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, and other top officials for month, accusing them of sabotaging Russia’s military by incompetence.
“Today I have sent letters to the investigative committee and the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation with a request to check on the fact of the commission of a crime during the preparation and during the conduct of the SMO [special military operation] by a host of senior functionaries of the defence ministry,” Reuters quoted Prigozhin as saying.
“These letters will not be published due to the fact that the investigative authorities will deal with this.”
Black people were three times more likely to receive Covid fines in England and Wales
Exclusive: those in poorest areas were seven times more likely to be fined, says research into how police used emergency pandemic powers
Fines during the pandemic were three times more likely to be given to black people and seven times more likely to be issued in the poorest areas, research commissioned for Britain’s police chiefs has revealed.
The study covering England and Wales showed racial disparity for every single force. In one area, ethnic minorities were up to eight times more likely to be fined. It presents further evidence of ethnic disparity in the use of police powers. Most forces deny they are institutionally racist, as does the government.
The report was commissioned by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and conducted by academics at the University of Edinburgh. The NPPC did not publish the findings, to the surprise of those who produced it....
..The study looked at the period from 27 March 2020 to 31 May 2021, when 122,506 fines were issued. In England, ethnic minority people were on average more than twice as likely than white people to be fined, with the rate even higher for black people. .
The study said: “In England, the rate of FPNs per 10,000 people from an ethnic minority background was 46.1, compared to 19.9 for white individuals, reflecting an ethnic disparity rate of 2.3.
“The ethnic disparity rate in England was highest for people from a black ethnic background, who were 3.2 times more likely to be issued with an FPN.”
In Wales the ethnic disparity was 2.8 times for ethnic minorities, and virtually identical for black people.
The report’s co-author Prof Susan McVie said: “There was not a single force area that did not have a higher disparity rate for ethnic minority groups.”
Surely this lacks context? What is the rate of issuing fines for exhibiting the same behaviour? I.e. if two white people were sat closer than 2 m on a bench what was the chance of getting a fine vs the same situation for two people of colour? Otherwise what are we measuring? Its not impossible that certain sectors ignored rules and regs more than others.*
Wagner chief says 'crimes' committed by Russian officials before and during invasion should be investigated
The head of the Russian mercenary group Wagner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, has said he has asked prosecutors to investigate “crimes” committed by senior Russian defence officials before and during the country’s invasion of Ukraine.
Prigozhin openly feuded with the Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, and other top officials for month, accusing them of sabotaging Russia’s military by incompetence.
“Today I have sent letters to the investigative committee and the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation with a request to check on the fact of the commission of a crime during the preparation and during the conduct of the SMO [special military operation] by a host of senior functionaries of the defence ministry,” Reuters quoted Prigozhin as saying.
“These letters will not be published due to the fact that the investigative authorities will deal with this.”
This is the same guy whose troops were punishing their fellow soldiers by laying them down, putting their head on a brick, and twatting their skull with a hammer so it burst like a watermelon.
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
He obviously fails to realise the UK and Russia were allies against the French in the War of Austrian Succession, 7 Years War and Napoleonic Wars and against the Germans in WW1 and Nazis in WW2. Hardly 'eternal enemies'
No in the Seven Years' War they fought with the French and Austrians against us and the Prussians despite a bizarre switch at the end. In the Napoleonic Wars they came to terms with France and ended trade with us until Napoleon attacked them. Also in WW2 they helped the Nazis until Hitler stabbed them in the back. And in WW1 they pulled out and left us and the French to face the Germans.
They may not be eternal enemies, but they are hardly natural allies either.
We have done them dirty too on occasion - not giving refuge to the Romanovs was pretty indefensible.
George V did, which is why you can never trust the royals.
Only because he was wary of revolution over here if he harboured his cousin and with the rising Labour Party here. It was actually Queen Mary who made the final decision. She was right, by the end of 1918 Russia and Germany and Austria had all lost their monarchies, joining France which had removed its monarchy in the late 18th century. Italy would become a republic too at the end of WW2 leaving the UK the only major European nation still with a monarchy until Spain restored its monarchy on a constitutional basis like ours after Franco in the 1970s (plus the smaller Scandinavian and Benelux nations).
The British royals sacrificed their own family to keep their own arses on the throne.
SHAMEFUL.
And they are still on the throne. However the blame for the murder of the Romanovs lies with the Bolsheviks themselves.
Of course Prince Philip played a key part in the reburial of the Romanovs with Yeltsin, the last Empress being his great aunt
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
I am sure it works for some, while quite a large number would recognise him for what he is - an extremely overweight bullshitting twat
It is all muscle.
I'm now nostalgic for the Johnson/muscle-to-fat threads...
There seems to be a Twitter belief that he wasn't ever that ill with covid. I have no way of knowing, but I think he was probably ill enough to need oxygen, which in my eyes is pretty ill. Not sure why some refuse to belief that he could have been properly ill.
I am feeling your love for Johnson.
It has never dawned on me to doubt Johnson was knocking on Heaven's door during COVID. In fact he was so cavalier I would have been more doubtful if he claimed to never have caught COVID.
Nonetheless as someone of a similar age to Johnson, I can tell the difference between fat and muscle. Johnson is thus certified (by me) as dangerously obese. The seriously obese were also susceptible to dangerous COVID symptom elevation.
If merely sloth and gluttony were Johnson's only deadly sins.
I have no love for Johnson. He is also clearly carrying rather a lot of fat. Much debate in recent years over the possibility of being fat and fit, but the outcome seems to be, you can be relatively fit whilst overweight, but you would always be better off if you lost the weight as well.
Wagner chief says 'crimes' committed by Russian officials before and during invasion should be investigated
The head of the Russian mercenary group Wagner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, has said he has asked prosecutors to investigate “crimes” committed by senior Russian defence officials before and during the country’s invasion of Ukraine.
Prigozhin openly feuded with the Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, and other top officials for month, accusing them of sabotaging Russia’s military by incompetence.
“Today I have sent letters to the investigative committee and the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation with a request to check on the fact of the commission of a crime during the preparation and during the conduct of the SMO [special military operation] by a host of senior functionaries of the defence ministry,” Reuters quoted Prigozhin as saying.
“These letters will not be published due to the fact that the investigative authorities will deal with this.”
This is the same guy whose troops were punishing their fellow soldiers by laying them down, putting their head on a brick, and twatting their skull with a hammer so it burst like a watermelon.
Okay !!!!!
I'd want to know what this guy considers "a crime".
I doubt he means what we would think it means. I doubt he means war crimes.
Wagner chief says 'crimes' committed by Russian officials before and during invasion should be investigated
The head of the Russian mercenary group Wagner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, has said he has asked prosecutors to investigate “crimes” committed by senior Russian defence officials before and during the country’s invasion of Ukraine.
Prigozhin openly feuded with the Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, and other top officials for month, accusing them of sabotaging Russia’s military by incompetence.
“Today I have sent letters to the investigative committee and the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation with a request to check on the fact of the commission of a crime during the preparation and during the conduct of the SMO [special military operation] by a host of senior functionaries of the defence ministry,” Reuters quoted Prigozhin as saying.
“These letters will not be published due to the fact that the investigative authorities will deal with this.”
It's interesting that both he and Strelkov/Girkin have a level of respect for the Ukrainians that is lacking in Russian warmongers who live in luxury in Moscow and have never been near the front line.
Why do women find Boris sexy, is the question I can see no answer to?
He's rich and powerful. There's a Kissinger quote about it.
Kissinger, though, was interesting, intelligent, and witty.
Arguably Boris is all of those three. Unfortunately he is also physically repellent, lazy, continously unfaithful, ungroomed, bad-teethed, and a liar. The only thing that gets him laid is the cash and the power.
I would imagine it starts with feeling a bit sorry for him, and then finding him a bit funny, and before they know it they're dreaming of being the woman who turned the unkempt frog into the Prince.
If you're meeting in person - and sometimes not even then - shortcomings in physical appearance can be overcome quite easily. Confidence is key - and Boris has that.
"Wilkes was notoriously ugly, being called the ugliest man in England at the time. He possessed an unsightly squint and protruding jaw, but he had a charm that carried all before it. He boasted that it "took him only half an hour to talk away his face", though the duration required changed on the several occasions Wilkes repeated the claim. He also declared that "a month's start of his rival on account of his face" would secure him the conquest in any love affair.
He was well known for his verbal wit and his snappy responses to insults. For instance, when told by a constituent that he would rather vote for the devil, Wilkes responded: "Naturally." He then added: "And if your friend decides against standing, can I count on your vote?"
Boris is funny and rich. That'll do for a lot of women. Power helps, too
I am sure it works for some, while quite a large number would recognise him for what he is - an extremely overweight bullshitting twat
It is all muscle.
I'm now nostalgic for the Johnson/muscle-to-fat threads...
There seems to be a Twitter belief that he wasn't ever that ill with covid. I have no way of knowing, but I think he was probably ill enough to need oxygen, which in my eyes is pretty ill. Not sure why some refuse to belief that he could have been properly ill.
I am feeling your love for Johnson.
It has never dawned on me to doubt Johnson was knocking on Heaven's door during COVID. In fact he was so cavalier I would have been more doubtful if he claimed to never have caught COVID.
Nonetheless as someone of a similar age to Johnson, I can tell the difference between fat and muscle. Johnson is thus certified (by me) as dangerously obese. The seriously obese were also susceptible to dangerous COVID symptom elevation.
If merely sloth and gluttony were Johnson's only deadly sins.
I have no love for Johnson. He is also clearly carrying rather a lot of fat. Much debate in recent years over the possibility of being fat and fit, but the outcome seems to be, you can be relatively fit whilst overweight, but you would always be better off if you lost the weight as well.
"You can be relatively fit whilst overweight".
"Fat and fit" is an oxymoron.
No, its not. Until recently I would have fit that category. Probably 3 stone overweight but running three times a week and completing regular half marathons. Fitness is relative.
Interesting thread on the success of British TERFs in shaping the debate: "The TERFs have been more successful in rolling back Le Woke than pretty much every other right-wing grifter combined."
"TERFS" have the advantage that they are (mostly) not right wing, despite efforts to brand them as such. They are speaking to centre left folks in terms that the latter sympathise with.
I should add that with enemies like their opponents, who needs friends?
Doing things like dumping bottles of urine outside the offices of the ECHR, accusing JK Rowling of "genocide", posting death and rape threats online, make the "TERS'" case far more eloquently than they ever could.
The question is why it's a UK-specific phenomenon.
English language means that the hysteria from the US on some subjects is imported?
I mean why is it that "TERFs" have been much more successful in pushing back in the UK than the US? In the US, the mainstream left is much more in thrall to gender ideology.
...Partly because the UK is doing what it did in the pandemic - analysing data to clarify evidence - something much more easily done with a unified health system, unlike the US, for example. The profit motive is also largely absent from much UK healthcare...
analysing data to clarify evidence...
...which in turn leads into problems in interpreting large masses of publicly accessible and updatable data. In a field where any interest group can publish a paper and call it a study, where anybody can do a review and call it a systematic review, where anybody can do a metaanalysis and get it published, where more and more papers are more and more distanced from the actual patients, where even honest analyses are done using black boxes sourced from elsewhere, where even the definition of a "study" is moot, checking and visualising this will take years.
Do you believe it's possible to be trapped in the wrong body?
Me, personally? Hmm, good question. I would accept it as a metaphor whereby a person believes that their body does not reflect what they would like to be. As for considerations of a "true self", I think that's a philosophical question about the separation of mind and brain - see my previous convo with @Leon about p-zombies - which I have difficulty with. One is what one is and to be is to be embodied.
If you were talking about souls, I need to point out that souls are sexless, a point mandated in the Bible I believe
The closest I personally could get to your question is that the state we are in at time t does not dictate our state at time t+n, with the probability decreasing as n increases. What we are now is not the same as what we were then, and what we will be in the future is not dictated by what we are now. To put it simply, humans are Markov chains
But my personal opinion does not alter the facts (sigh), and the fact is that many people feel that they are trapped in the wrong body. One does not need to produce trans people to discuss this, since the existence of the disabled-from-birth amply demonstrates
And just as I would not describe somebody born without sight as "in thrall to sightist ideology", I would not describe somebody who feels themselves to be the wrong sex as "in thrall to gender ideology"
Incidentally, and to pre-empt your next question, did you catch Mary Harrington's speech in the NatCon thing. I thought her case well argued and utterly wrong.
I agree that people (and everything else) are constantly changing, but the metaphor of being trapped in the wrong body is highly problematic. It encourages the idea that without expensive medical treatment, someone cannot be themselves and makes the option of successful therapy or even just 'growing out of it' seem like some terrible societal oppression.
I'm not sure why you've taken such umbrage at the phrase "in thrall to gender ideology". The concept of social gender as something entirely independent of biological sex is undoubtedly an ideology, and it is not trans people themselves whom I accuse of being in thrall to it, but those who believe society should be reorganised around ensuring that nobody ever need be confronted with the reality of their biological sex.
I hadn't listened to Mary Harrington's speech when you posted but have done now. Which bit exactly do you think is utterly wrong? The link with transhumanism in general or the NGO/Big Pharma nexus?
Wagner chief says 'crimes' committed by Russian officials before and during invasion should be investigated
The head of the Russian mercenary group Wagner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, has said he has asked prosecutors to investigate “crimes” committed by senior Russian defence officials before and during the country’s invasion of Ukraine.
Prigozhin openly feuded with the Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, and other top officials for month, accusing them of sabotaging Russia’s military by incompetence.
“Today I have sent letters to the investigative committee and the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation with a request to check on the fact of the commission of a crime during the preparation and during the conduct of the SMO [special military operation] by a host of senior functionaries of the defence ministry,” Reuters quoted Prigozhin as saying.
“These letters will not be published due to the fact that the investigative authorities will deal with this.”
This is the same guy whose troops were punishing their fellow soldiers by laying them down, putting their head on a brick, and twatting their skull with a hammer so it burst like a watermelon.
Okay !!!!!
I'd want to know what this guy considers "a crime".
I doubt he means what we would think it means. I doubt he means war crimes.
The WWI German military had some interesting definitions of War Crimes.
For example, fighting back back when attacked. See Captain Fryatt.
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
He obviously fails to realise the UK and Russia were allies against the French in the War of Austrian Succession, 7 Years War and Napoleonic Wars and against the Germans in WW1 and Nazis in WW2. Hardly 'eternal enemies'
No in the Seven Years' War they fought with the French and Austrians against us and the Prussians despite a bizarre switch at the end. In the Napoleonic Wars they came to terms with France and ended trade with us until Napoleon attacked them. Also in WW2 they helped the Nazis until Hitler stabbed them in the back. And in WW1 they pulled out and left us and the French to face the Germans.
They may not be eternal enemies, but they are hardly natural allies either.
We have done them dirty too on occasion - not giving refuge to the Romanovs was pretty indefensible.
George V did, which is why you can never trust the royals.
Only because he was wary of revolution over here if he harboured his cousin and with the rising Labour Party here. It was actually Queen Mary who made the final decision. She was right, by the end of 1918 Russia and Germany and Austria had all lost their monarchies, joining France which had removed its monarchy in the late 18th century. Italy would become a republic too at the end of WW2 leaving the UK the only major European nation still with a monarchy until Spain restored its monarchy on a constitutional basis like ours after Franco in the 1970s (plus the smaller Scandinavian and Benelux nations).
Even if he had offered, there were significant obstacles to physically getting them here.
Interesting thread on the success of British TERFs in shaping the debate: "The TERFs have been more successful in rolling back Le Woke than pretty much every other right-wing grifter combined."
"TERFS" have the advantage that they are (mostly) not right wing, despite efforts to brand them as such. They are speaking to centre left folks in terms that the latter sympathise with.
I should add that with enemies like their opponents, who needs friends?
Doing things like dumping bottles of urine outside the offices of the ECHR, accusing JK Rowling of "genocide", posting death and rape threats online, make the "TERS'" case far more eloquently than they ever could.
The question is why it's a UK-specific phenomenon.
English language means that the hysteria from the US on some subjects is imported?
I mean why is it that "TERFs" have been much more successful in pushing back in the UK than the US? In the US, the mainstream left is much more in thrall to gender ideology.
...Partly because the UK is doing what it did in the pandemic - analysing data to clarify evidence - something much more easily done with a unified health system, unlike the US, for example. The profit motive is also largely absent from much UK healthcare...
analysing data to clarify evidence...
...which in turn leads into problems in interpreting large masses of publicly accessible and updatable data. In a field where any interest group can publish a paper and call it a study, where anybody can do a review and call it a systematic review, where anybody can do a metaanalysis and get it published, where more and more papers are more and more distanced from the actual patients, where even honest analyses are done using black boxes sourced from elsewhere, where even the definition of a "study" is moot, checking and visualising this will take years.
How is it that “any interest group can publish a paper and call it a study” or “where anybody can do a review and call it a systematic review, where anybody can do a metaanalysis and get it published”? You’re not going to get anything published without it going through peer review.
I would like to know how it cost £37bn for a phone app that did not work.
That is enough to build 44 Type 26 frigates... (£4.2bn for 5 of them according to gov.uk)
FFS it didn't. Ever use a 'free' Covid test kit? That was from the 37 billion too. There are still people with hundreds of boxes of those kits in their houses. You could pick up two free boxes a day at the Uni and many did, every day, for months.
I don't understand why intelligent people still think the ap cost 37 billion.
The test kits were more than likely cost effective (though the ability to acquire such things without granting massive profit margins to middle men is something we should develop). Track and trace was a huge waste of money - and obviously so long before it was closed down.
I think track and trace was very effective in places like.Korea and.Taiwan. But it does require a high level of compliance. Not sure the application was mainly at fault here.
Taiwan and South Korea took different approaches to most Western countries.
Taiwan used QR code check-ins like us — which are voluntary to a degree, as I guess no matter what the law says you should do you can ignore it — but with cellphone records used to chase down contacts, which is simply mass surveillance, and totally involuntary unless you bin your phone.
South Korea used records of financial transactions and cellphone records, I think CCTV might have been in the mix too, and there was nothing voluntary about it all. It was the state using all its powers to keep track of where everyone had been.
The Silicon Valley pitch for Bluetooth proximity contact tracing was it would create a way of automatically and anonymously ending the pandemic, as responsible people would report infections, and then the system would automatically alert every anonymous close contact to isolate and get tested. It didn't come close to that, the effect appears to have been quite minimal. Probably not a total waste of effort, but certainly no silver bullet.
Interesting thread on the success of British TERFs in shaping the debate: "The TERFs have been more successful in rolling back Le Woke than pretty much every other right-wing grifter combined."
"TERFS" have the advantage that they are (mostly) not right wing, despite efforts to brand them as such. They are speaking to centre left folks in terms that the latter sympathise with.
I should add that with enemies like their opponents, who needs friends?
Doing things like dumping bottles of urine outside the offices of the ECHR, accusing JK Rowling of "genocide", posting death and rape threats online, make the "TERS'" case far more eloquently than they ever could.
The question is why it's a UK-specific phenomenon.
English language means that the hysteria from the US on some subjects is imported?
I mean why is it that "TERFs" have been much more successful in pushing back in the UK than the US? In the US, the mainstream left is much more in thrall to gender ideology.
...Partly because the UK is doing what it did in the pandemic - analysing data to clarify evidence - something much more easily done with a unified health system, unlike the US, for example. The profit motive is also largely absent from much UK healthcare...
analysing data to clarify evidence...
...which in turn leads into problems in interpreting large masses of publicly accessible and updatable data. In a field where any interest group can publish a paper and call it a study, where anybody can do a review and call it a systematic review, where anybody can do a metaanalysis and get it published, where more and more papers are more and more distanced from the actual patients, where even honest analyses are done using black boxes sourced from elsewhere, where even the definition of a "study" is moot, checking and visualising this will take years.
How is it that “any interest group can publish a paper and call it a study” or “where anybody can do a review and call it a systematic review, where anybody can do a metaanalysis and get it published”? You’re not going to get anything published without it going through peer review.
We both know that's not entirely true. There are very many poor quality journals that will publish pretty mich anything.*
*Mainly in the sovial sciences, especially if put in enough fancy sounding words, like hermenuetics...
Wagner chief says 'crimes' committed by Russian officials before and during invasion should be investigated
The head of the Russian mercenary group Wagner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, has said he has asked prosecutors to investigate “crimes” committed by senior Russian defence officials before and during the country’s invasion of Ukraine.
Prigozhin openly feuded with the Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, and other top officials for month, accusing them of sabotaging Russia’s military by incompetence.
“Today I have sent letters to the investigative committee and the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation with a request to check on the fact of the commission of a crime during the preparation and during the conduct of the SMO [special military operation] by a host of senior functionaries of the defence ministry,” Reuters quoted Prigozhin as saying.
“These letters will not be published due to the fact that the investigative authorities will deal with this.”
It's interesting that both he and Strelkov/Girkin have a level of respect for the Ukrainians that is lacking in Russian warmongers who live in luxury in Moscow and have never been near the front line.
The same is true of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
Those who spent time in the IDF, particularly those who actually fought, are usually of the view that for the conflict to end, the Palestinians need to be given something.
The biggest warmongers are the ultra-religious who are exempt from military service, or those who grew up or live outside Israel*.
Interesting thread on the success of British TERFs in shaping the debate: "The TERFs have been more successful in rolling back Le Woke than pretty much every other right-wing grifter combined."
"TERFS" have the advantage that they are (mostly) not right wing, despite efforts to brand them as such. They are speaking to centre left folks in terms that the latter sympathise with.
I should add that with enemies like their opponents, who needs friends?
Doing things like dumping bottles of urine outside the offices of the ECHR, accusing JK Rowling of "genocide", posting death and rape threats online, make the "TERS'" case far more eloquently than they ever could.
The question is why it's a UK-specific phenomenon.
English language means that the hysteria from the US on some subjects is imported?
I mean why is it that "TERFs" have been much more successful in pushing back in the UK than the US? In the US, the mainstream left is much more in thrall to gender ideology.
...Partly because the UK is doing what it did in the pandemic - analysing data to clarify evidence - something much more easily done with a unified health system, unlike the US, for example. The profit motive is also largely absent from much UK healthcare...
analysing data to clarify evidence...
...which in turn leads into problems in interpreting large masses of publicly accessible and updatable data. In a field where any interest group can publish a paper and call it a study, where anybody can do a review and call it a systematic review, where anybody can do a metaanalysis and get it published, where more and more papers are more and more distanced from the actual patients, where even honest analyses are done using black boxes sourced from elsewhere, where even the definition of a "study" is moot, checking and visualising this will take years.
How is it that “any interest group can publish a paper and call it a study” or “where anybody can do a review and call it a systematic review, where anybody can do a metaanalysis and get it published”? You’re not going to get anything published without it going through peer review.
We both know that's not entirely true. There are very many poor quality journals that will publish pretty mich anything.*
*Mainly in the sovial sciences, especially if put in enough fancy sounding words, like hermenuetics...
That are poor quality journals, but no-one serious is reading them. Medical regulators or people doing systematic reviews to be published in reputable medical journals are going to ignore crap in predatory journals.
Comments
Most internal UK flights could feasibly be electric powered within about a decade.
Long haul is going to be confined to dirigibles - though that could be interesting, since they also have a large surface area which could be covered with the newer lightweight, flexible solar panels...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-55733908
For Transfer of Title the selling party must have that title in the first place. They don't so surely that invalidates the sale.
I could not sell my neighbours car to someone and keep the money and them be deprived of the car.
Bizarre.
I don't care about the app.
Evolutionary Psychology says every human (beyond the non-sexual etc) is generally looking for a mate and a potential co-parent, even if the drive is only subconscious. It's why beauty standards tend to be universal: men in particular like youth, nubility, symmetry, well shaped limbs, evidence of good health (clear skin, good hair, white teeth). There are variations but they aren't that various. Youth is especially prized as that means fertility in women
This is less true of female attitudes to men, as women take into account other factors. An older man might be a little less fertile, but he's still fertile, and on the upside he is likely to be richer, more powerful, able to deliver a better start in life to any child. Wit is a sign of high intelligence, and arousing in itself, which is why a funny guy can make up for dowdy looks
A rich, funny, powerful guy like Boris will be attractive for a lot of women, hence the long list of conquests and kids
Some people are born funny, some smart, some good-looking, or indeed the opposite - I'm not sure why any is considered morally superior to the other
Aviation (and possibly motorsport) is where the serious efforts into battery technology will go though. Batteries for cars will quickly become “good enough” to have a day’s driving range, and weight and volume are not as critical.
I’ve suggested before that Formula E racing should be based on prototype batteries, where the car weighs x plus the battery, and they should be prepared to put out a few fires in a relatively safe environment.
What will also be interesting in the rush to net zero is the ideological battle between those who want to get to net zero and keep living as we do, just sustainably, and the Green/XR/JSO/Degrowth viewpoint that net zero must be used to reframe our system and move away from a capitalist model.
I am not sure who will win yet. It will be an interesting decade.
Occam's Razor told us this back in Feb 2020 but oh well. Better late than never
I am trying to find an ounce of sympathy for the trillions of virologists who have fruitlessly wasted the last three years trying to prove it came from bats in the market, pangolins in Christmas soup, gay transexual marmosets dropped by parachute onto Wuhan, rather than the lab which was actually MAKING this virus in Wuhan, but I can't find it in me. They tried to hoodwink the public and bully us all into silence
They deserve trials in court, not sympathy
The material literally goes off in storage.
https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/311-did-sars-co-v-2-escape-from-a-lab
Have you ever succumbed to a plain, fat lass because of her wit and charm?
Long range aviation will go to biofuel, fairly rapidly.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65764387
https://web.archive.org/web/20220414202655/https://arms.nice.org.uk/resources/hub/1070905/attachment
https://web.archive.org/web/20220215111922/https://arms.nice.org.uk/resources/hub/1070871/attachment
Links from this:
https://segm.org/NICE_gender_medicine_systematic_review_finds_poor_quality_evidence
Poo
So I searched for this https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56601386 which got to this https://twitter.com/will_malone/status/1377659609452777474 which had t.co links https://t.co/XttP58Ykr5 and https://t.co/Nmqcag6V8T which I lengthened manually to https://arms.nice.org.uk/resources/hub/1070905/attachment and https://arms.nice.org.uk/resources/hub/1070871/attachment and found archive.org copies at
https://web.archive.org/web/20210402083804/https://arms.nice.org.uk/resources/hub/1070905/attachment
https://web.archive.org/web/20210331202227/https://arms.nice.org.uk/resources/hub/1070871/attachment
As I say, men are much more simplistic and visual - they want youth, fertility and beauty (because beauty signals good reproductive health = clear skin equals no diseases etc)
That said, women can be pretty simplistic and brutal as well. Try asking women if they would ever date someone shorter than themselves
https://youtube.com/watch?v=sSfejgwbDQ8
This will be the video that our kids and grandkids watch in two or three decades’ time, when they ask about what happened in 2020.
(slams door)
And Jon Stewart got labelled as a racist for that riff. Quite absurd
Ditto Nature for publishing that outrageous paper Proximal Origins which tried to completely crush the Lab Leak hypothesis from the start: an overtly political move disguised as "science", which was so warped it basically lied outright
In private, some of the authors of the paper admitted that Lab Leak was highly feasible, if not entirely probable. But we only know this because researchers forced disclosure of their secret emails to each other
Its absolutely mind blowing to me this is the case.
Not surprised really that he's standing down, a snowball in hell would have about as much chance as the Tories holding onto Warrington South at this time, its a very narrow swing seat. In 2015 even the exit poll said the Tories would lose it but narrowly held on. The seat was lost in 2017 and regained in 2019.
But at least Mike Smithson's letter might get another outing next time now. This was one of the Tory/Lab swing seats in 2019 to get the infamous letter that the Lib Dems put Mike's name onto.
If he was still around he would be making a fortune doing the type of tour Tony Benn did after he retired from Parliament..
To rehash my recollection of Dawkins: sexual selection is typified by things like peacock tails evolving very quickly to ridiculous sizes. The characteristic selected for has no inherent survival value (a big tail doesn't make you better at building nests or finding peacock food) except it acquires one as a sort of second order effect, because it gets you and your sons laid and therefore perpetuates your genes. Human brain expansion happened so fast that there's a case to be made that it is a sexual selection thing, in which case Plato and Shakespeare and Einstein and all that stuff are mere epiphenomena resulting from stone age blokes talking women into bed.
She grew up in an £850,000 6 bed detached property with swimming pool in a village in Suffolk and attended £14,682 Hockerill Anglo-European College in Hertfordshire and £41,000-a-year Li Po Chun United World College in Hong Kong before going to Oxford University
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12140963/Trans-protester-stormed-Kathleen-Stocks-speech-anti-Republican-called-royals-parasites.html
Perhaps that is what protects him, and others. Western Science has been bought by China. Sad
Riz Possnett - Actual name is probably Rizalina Harvey-Smyth-Possnett, and actually distantly related to the King.
If this was a Sun sex pest story the Grauniad would have been all over it. Which makes it all the more surprising they get treated with kid gloves in return.
Presumably there is some ev psych explanation, musical ability is another peacock's tail of male homo sapiens?
If it was the Sun, there would now be wall to wall coverage, with the likes of Bad Al never off our screens demanding the paper be shut down immediately.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65758206
As for brain expansion, isn't that just that the thickest cavemen were clubbing themselves in the head and getting sat on by mammoths, so the cleverest survived and procreated?
The parody account has built up nearly 200,000 followers since its launch in 2019, with its anonymous writer publishing a book last year.
Followers have speculated that the person behind the account is a high-profile comedian or a real-life MP.
But Morris is in fact a personal trainer and ultra marathon runner from Yorkshire, who now lives in Wales.
Morris puts on amateur Shakespeare productions in Wales every year, is behind the Field Maneuvers rave in Norfolk and is a campaigner to end raptor persecution on grouse moors with Chris Packham's Wild Justice group."
https://bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-65758206
Would that he were an actual Tory MP.
Dr Ranj Singh of “This Morning” fame, please explain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway
Donald Trump will have to sell his Turnberry golf resort before the Scottish course is considered for another Open Championship.
The 45th US president has been lobbying for his Ayrshire venue to be picked again, saying this month that “everybody wants to see the Open Championship here”.
However, insiders close to the R&A, the company which runs golf’s original championship, confirmed he is facing rejection again, with organisers adamant he will not be considered. Trump was told he was unlikely to get an Open after the US Capitol attack in January 2021. One source said the position remained just as robust as it did then due to the perceived security risk from potential protests.
The 151st Open takes place this summer at Royal Liverpool from July 16. But Trump, who is seen as likely to be the Republican nominee for a potential second stint in the White House, has been talking up relations with the R&A in recent months. In an interview with GB News during his last visit to the course on May 3, he said he had “spent a tremendous amount of money” redeveloping the course following advice from former chief executive of The R&A, Peter Dawson.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/golf/2023/05/31/donald-trump-turnberry-golf-course-blacklisted-by-open/
British officials are a “legitimate military target” for Russian attacks, a former Russian president has said.
Dmitry Medvedev, the deputy chairman of President Putin’s security council, said British military support for Ukraine constituted “an undeclared war against Russia”. He said the UK was an “eternal enemy” of Moscow.
Medvedev was responding to comments made by James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, who had defended Ukraine’s right to strike military targets in Russia after Moscow was subjected to a barrage of kamikaze drone attacks on Tuesday morning. Ukrainian officials denied that they were responsible, but on Monday the country’s military had warned it would retaliate against Russia for its bombardments of Ukrainian cities.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/medvedev-says-uk-officials-are-legitimate-military-targets-for-russia-j5gpxgmzm
https://www.theverge.com/2022/5/4/23035377/stack-overflow-drop-the-key-v2-copy-paste-keyboard
There seems to be a Twitter belief that he wasn't ever that ill with covid. I have no way of knowing, but I think he was probably ill enough to need oxygen, which in my eyes is pretty ill. Not sure why some refuse to belief that he could have been properly ill.
They may not be eternal enemies, but they are hardly natural allies either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jY1ecibLYo
SHAMEFUL.
It has never dawned on me to doubt Johnson was knocking on Heaven's door during COVID. In fact he was so cavalier I would have been more doubtful if he claimed to never have caught COVID.
Nonetheless as someone of a similar age to Johnson, I can tell the difference between fat and muscle. Johnson is thus certified (by me) as dangerously obese. The seriously obese were also susceptible to dangerous COVID symptom elevation.
If merely sloth and gluttony were Johnson's only deadly sins.
Black people were three times more likely to receive Covid fines in England and Wales
Exclusive: those in poorest areas were seven times more likely to be fined, says research into how police used emergency pandemic powers
Fines during the pandemic were three times more likely to be given to black people and seven times more likely to be issued in the poorest areas, research commissioned for Britain’s police chiefs has revealed.
The study covering England and Wales showed racial disparity for every single force. In one area, ethnic minorities were up to eight times more likely to be fined. It presents further evidence of ethnic disparity in the use of police powers. Most forces deny they are institutionally racist, as does the government.
The report was commissioned by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and conducted by academics at the University of Edinburgh. The NPPC did not publish the findings, to the surprise of those who produced it....
..The study looked at the period from 27 March 2020 to 31 May 2021, when 122,506 fines were issued. In England, ethnic minority people were on average more than twice as likely than white people to be fined, with the rate even higher for black people. .
The study said: “In England, the rate of FPNs per 10,000 people from an ethnic minority background was 46.1, compared to 19.9 for white individuals, reflecting an ethnic disparity rate of 2.3.
“The ethnic disparity rate in England was highest for people from a black ethnic background, who were 3.2 times more likely to be issued with an FPN.”
In Wales the ethnic disparity was 2.8 times for ethnic minorities, and virtually identical for black people.
The report’s co-author Prof Susan McVie said: “There was not a single force area that did not have a higher disparity rate for ethnic minority groups.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/may/31/black-people-england-wales-more-likely-issued-pandemic-fines-police-study
Wagner chief says 'crimes' committed by Russian officials before and during invasion should be investigated
The head of the Russian mercenary group Wagner, Yevgeny Prigozhin, has said he has asked prosecutors to investigate “crimes” committed by senior Russian defence officials before and during the country’s invasion of Ukraine.
Prigozhin openly feuded with the Russian defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, and other top officials for month, accusing them of sabotaging Russia’s military by incompetence.
“Today I have sent letters to the investigative committee and the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation with a request to check on the fact of the commission of a crime during the preparation and during the conduct of the SMO [special military operation] by a host of senior functionaries of the defence ministry,” Reuters quoted Prigozhin as saying.
“These letters will not be published due to the fact that the investigative authorities will deal with this.”
The defence ministry did not immediately comment.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2023/may/31/russia-ukraine-war-live-russian-oil-refinery-in-krasnodar-on-fire-belgorod-shelled-says-governor?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-64773ab38f08b007454b740f#block-64773ab38f08b007454b740f
*Members of the government for one.
Okay !!!!!
Of course Prince Philip played a key part in the reburial of the Romanovs with Yeltsin, the last Empress being his great aunt
"Fat and fit" is an oxymoron.
I doubt he means what we would think it means. I doubt he means war crimes.
I'm not sure why you've taken such umbrage at the phrase "in thrall to gender ideology". The concept of social gender as something entirely independent of biological sex is undoubtedly an ideology, and it is not trans people themselves whom I accuse of being in thrall to it, but those who believe society should be reorganised around ensuring that nobody ever need be confronted with the reality of their biological sex.
I hadn't listened to Mary Harrington's speech when you posted but have done now. Which bit exactly do you think is utterly wrong? The link with transhumanism in general or the NGO/Big Pharma nexus?
For example, fighting back back when attacked. See Captain Fryatt.
Taiwan used QR code check-ins like us — which are voluntary to a degree, as I guess no matter what the law says you should do you can ignore it — but with cellphone records used to chase down contacts, which is simply mass surveillance, and totally involuntary unless you bin your phone.
South Korea used records of financial transactions and cellphone records, I think CCTV might have been in the mix too, and there was nothing voluntary about it all. It was the state using all its powers to keep track of where everyone had been.
The Silicon Valley pitch for Bluetooth proximity contact tracing was it would create a way of automatically and anonymously ending the pandemic, as responsible people would report infections, and then the system would automatically alert every anonymous close contact to isolate and get tested. It didn't come close to that, the effect appears to have been quite minimal. Probably not a total waste of effort, but certainly no silver bullet.
*Mainly in the sovial sciences, especially if put in enough fancy sounding words, like hermenuetics...
Those who spent time in the IDF, particularly those who actually fought, are usually of the view that for the conflict to end, the Palestinians need to be given something.
The biggest warmongers are the ultra-religious who are exempt from military service, or those who grew up or live outside Israel*.
* Like Melanie Philips