Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
Tate is what happens when you tell millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default, but with little discussion of the actual issues.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
What's your evidence that Tate is a consequence of this supposed telling "millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default"?
Andrew Tate is responsible for being Andrew Tate. You deal with Tate's misogyny by telling people misogyny is wrong, not by soft pedalling on misogyny.
Looking at that polling data if we assume that there's about 25% who are unsure if they think Trump is guilty or innocent.
And if there's a third who would be less likely to support trump if he's found guilty then that would be a third of a quarter of the electorate, approximately 8%, less likely to vote for Trump.
Now if even half of those 8% did change their vote in 2024 then Trump's chances of winning must be close to zero.
A rough calculation and assuming Trump is found guilty.
The question we haven't asked is: what if Trump is found not guilty?
Given the US system of Jury challenging I find it difficult to believe they will even find a jury to consider these cases. I mean where in the US today can you find a dozen people who can honestly say they have no pre-conceived opinion of Trump for good or bad?
After a very turbulent few years, most of which is unprecedented in the average lifetime, it does appear that everyone is in the mood for kicking out the incumbents.
It’s time for a change, no matter what the change.
In Canada specifically, Trudeau is in trouble for his authoritation attacks on protestors during the pandemic, and his euthanasia law that’s leading to the state ‘encouraging’ vulnerable groups to choose that way out.
Also add NZ to that where Labor's popularity has fallen back sharply after Jacinda mania and potentially looking like National + ACT with slim majority
The police officer I met with after my car was written off was genuinely ashamed when she called me back to say she wouldn't have the capacity to run CCTV/ANPR checks.
I don't think there is any issue with motivation from the police.
This is one area where I very much agree with the Government critics.
Fir a start it is important to differentiate between the individuals and the systems. I don't think the recent scandals involving police officers assaulting women and some of the endemic misogynistic behaviour exhibited by some police have much bearing on this debate. Whilst important in their own right (perhaps MORE important given how the systems have failed to deal with them), they are a distraction in terms of the discussion about police priorities in terms of crime. What matters in this instance is whether our police are being given the right priorities in terms of their use of resources and time and whther they are being funded sufficiently to meet those priorities.
The underlying problem to me seems to be that polkice are NOT being funded properly. We do not have enough police, we do not give them the right training and we do not fund the right equipment for them. If we did that then a lot of these questions of priorities and how police resources should be depoyed would go away.
Back in November 2018 I was contacted by the police one evening to go to the house of a close friend who had died suddenly as a result of an aneurysm. There was a single policeman at the scene who had been alerted by neighbours and I was asked to identify the body and provide some background information regarding my friends immediate medical history (he had advanced lung cancer which was the ultimate cause of the aneurysm).
Once that was done I had expected the policeman to be on his way. I was willing to wait with the body for the undertaker. However he was not allowed to leave until he had handed over the body to the undertakers - who it turned out didn't want to turn up because the rates for this sort of work are not good and getting worse. So we sat there from 8pm until almost midnight, drinking tea, whilst the policeman was on the radio with the desk sergeant, both of them getting more and more annoyed because the only polcieman on duty that Tuesday evening in the whole town was tied up drinking tea waiting for undertakers.
So it was then that I found out that weeknights the whole on duty policeforce for Newark consisted of a single desk sergeant and a single beat officer. We talked about this and he said that even more shocking was that the whole on duty force for Nottingham that night (a city of half a million or so people) consisted of 12 officers.
Of course, as was shown by the recent knife attacks there, they could get more out very quickly if needed but it does strike me that the whole police service has been whittled down to a tiny number far below what we would reasonably expect from a viable and effective force.
Whilst I was on Teesside we (Labour councillors) chatted with the local Inspector. On a Saturday night he had 3 officers to cover a very large area. As soon as you had scrotes in custody you could end up with zero available in a place as calm and crime-free as hartlepool.
Tories now say they want to crack down on crime. Yes, we all do. But why do we have so much crime? Because in some places there are no police. None.
I am liking Suella's blue skies policing thinking. Get her into office quickly and get rid of the failing incumbents.
The problem with this kind of comment is that it's just too realistic.
WaPo (via Seattle Times) - In Ukraine, some see drinking Aperol Spritz as supporting Russia
KYIV – The Aperol Spritz is so popular that the cocktail is practically synonymous with summer in Europe, where connoisseurs cram onto patios and around bar tops to guzzle down the bubbly, orange aperitif.
But in Ukraine, many bars that once served the quintessential drink are now boycotting it, citing the decision of the brand’s owner, Italy-based Campari Group, to continue operating in Russia.
“We had glasses with the Aperol name on them and we destroyed them or threw them in the trash,” said Pavlo Lavrukhin, 29, a bartender at Squat 17B, a hipster hangout tucked behind a residential building in central Kyiv.
Made up of two parts Aperol – a bitter whose core ingredients are gentian, rhubarb and cinchona – three parts prosecco and a dash of sparkling water, poured over a glass of ice and topped with an orange slice, the drink is viewed by devotees as the ideal antidote to sweltering weather.
Giving up the Spritz altogether is out of the question – Ukrainian fans love the cocktail. So, Squat 17B and other bars got rid of Aperol and are serving an alternative made with comparable orange spirits from other Italian companies instead. . . .
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
Tate is what happens when you tell millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default, but with little discussion of the actual issues.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
What's your evidence that Tate is a consequence of this supposed telling "millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default"?
Andrew Tate is responsible for being Andrew Tate. You deal with Tate's misogyny by telling people misogyny is wrong, not by soft pedalling on misogyny.
I think Sandpit was referring to his popularity.
What is the evidence that his popularity is caused this way?
Looking at that polling data if we assume that there's about 25% who are unsure if they think Trump is guilty or innocent.
And if there's a third who would be less likely to support trump if he's found guilty then that would be a third of a quarter of the electorate, approximately 8%, less likely to vote for Trump.
Now if even half of those 8% did change their vote in 2024 then Trump's chances of winning must be close to zero.
A rough calculation and assuming Trump is found guilty.
The question we haven't asked is: what if Trump is found not guilty?
Given the US system of Jury challenging I find it difficult to believe they will even find a jury to consider these cases. I mean where in the US today can you find a dozen people who can honestly say they have no pre-conceived opinion of Trump for good or bad?
Might they possibly put the lesser fry on trial first, and then if they are found guilty Trump will be under pressure to cut a deal?
That's what usually seems to happen in these cases in the US.
After a very turbulent few years, most of which is unprecedented in the average lifetime, it does appear that everyone is in the mood for kicking out the incumbents.
It’s time for a change, no matter what the change.
In Canada specifically, Trudeau is in trouble for his authoritation attacks on protestors during the pandemic, and his euthanasia law that’s leading to the state ‘encouraging’ vulnerable groups to choose that way out.
Also add NZ to that where Labor's popularity has fallen back sharply after Jacinda mania and potentially looking like National + ACT with slim majority
Also on 338Canada, I don't like the ridiculously high level of certainty when there are still 2 years to the next election.
Looking at that polling data if we assume that there's about 25% who are unsure if they think Trump is guilty or innocent.
And if there's a third who would be less likely to support trump if he's found guilty then that would be a third of a quarter of the electorate, approximately 8%, less likely to vote for Trump.
Now if even half of those 8% did change their vote in 2024 then Trump's chances of winning must be close to zero.
A rough calculation and assuming Trump is found guilty.
The question we haven't asked is: what if Trump is found not guilty?
Of what? In 45's case, definitely need to specify what indictment/jurisdiction to which you're referring!
Looking at that polling data if we assume that there's about 25% who are unsure if they think Trump is guilty or innocent.
And if there's a third who would be less likely to support trump if he's found guilty then that would be a third of a quarter of the electorate, approximately 8%, less likely to vote for Trump.
Now if even half of those 8% did change their vote in 2024 then Trump's chances of winning must be close to zero.
A rough calculation and assuming Trump is found guilty.
The question we haven't asked is: what if Trump is found not guilty?
Given the US system of Jury challenging I find it difficult to believe they will even find a jury to consider these cases. I mean where in the US today can you find a dozen people who can honestly say they have no pre-conceived opinion of Trump for good or bad?
The Jean Carroll case did fine, as did the Trump Organization tax fraud case. The grand juries for the documents case, the Georgia case and the main election interference case worked.
After a very turbulent few years, most of which is unprecedented in the average lifetime, it does appear that everyone is in the mood for kicking out the incumbents.
It’s time for a change, no matter what the change.
In Canada specifically, Trudeau is in trouble for his authoritation attacks on protestors during the pandemic, and his euthanasia law that’s leading to the state ‘encouraging’ vulnerable groups to choose that way out.
Also add NZ to that where Labor's popularity has fallen back sharply after Jacinda mania and potentially looking like National + ACT with slim majority
Plus Germany where the governing SPD trail, France where Le Pen leads, Spain where the ruling Socialists were recently beaten for most seats by the PP and here where the governing Tories trail. In the US too Biden is even tied with Trump.
Australia where Labor still lead and Italy where Meloni leads are the only major western nations where incumbents are still clearly ahead in polls but those governments were only elected last year
Looking at that polling data if we assume that there's about 25% who are unsure if they think Trump is guilty or innocent.
And if there's a third who would be less likely to support trump if he's found guilty then that would be a third of a quarter of the electorate, approximately 8%, less likely to vote for Trump.
Now if even half of those 8% did change their vote in 2024 then Trump's chances of winning must be close to zero.
A rough calculation and assuming Trump is found guilty.
The question we haven't asked is: what if Trump is found not guilty?
Of what? In 45's case, definitely need to specify what indictment/jurisdiction to which you're referring!
I think the 3 cases that are attracting most attention are the documents case, the federal election interference case and the Georgia election interference case. Trump being declared innocent in any one of those would support his narrative and might swing independents.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Cheeky fundraiser just arrived from "Not Nadine Dorries":
Nick, it took longer than Liz Truss’ time in office but I’ve finally resigned.
When I arrived in Mid Bedfordshire in 2005, I inherited a Conservative majority of 8,000. It's now 25,000, a legacy I am proud of.
It would be a terrible shame if the Labour Party undid all of that, wouldn't it?
Nick, I’m asking you, for my legacy’s sake - do not donate to the Labour Party’s by-election campaign fund today:
Don't click this button!
Nick, I understand. Just the other day in my resignation letter to Rishi Sunak, I said:
The Prime Minister has no mandate and puts his ambition above the stability of our country and the economy, the government is adrift and the British public are being taken for fools.
And much more.
I stand by it all! It’s a brilliant letter. Some people say I haven't been doing my job in months - well, now you know what I was working on!
But Nick, this really is about my legacy. Just because Rishi Sunak’s weak zombie government has no plan, doesn’t mean we can just let the Labour Party storm to victory in Mid Bedfordshire.
Please, do not donate to Labour’s Mid Bedfordshire campaign fund today:
Seriously, don't click.
Well, that’s me away. A letter and an email in three days is hard work you know.
I hope I’ve managed to convince you - do not donate to build a better Britain!
Thank you,
Not Nadine Dorries Former very busy MP for Mid Bedfordshire
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
The Kims you mean. And the Mount Paektu bloodline.
On this one Sunil is actually on solid ground.
Christ, Kim Il Sung and Kim jong-Il have essentially been deified like Roman Emperors.
Christ wasn't royal either, he was a carpenter like his father but at least he could claim some distant relationship to King David
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
Tate is what happens when you tell millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default, but with little discussion of the actual issues.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
What's your evidence that Tate is a consequence of this supposed telling "millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default"?
Andrew Tate is responsible for being Andrew Tate. You deal with Tate's misogyny by telling people misogyny is wrong, not by soft pedalling on misogyny.
Andrew Tate is going to keep on being Andrew Tate.
The rest of society needs to get around the idea that Andrew Tate is bad, and offer their own, better, vision of life to his supporters.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
The Kims you mean. And the Mount Paektu bloodline.
On this one Sunil is actually on solid ground.
Christ, Kim Il Sung and Kim jong-Il have essentially been deified like Roman Emperors.
Christ wasn't royal either, he was a carpenter like his father but at least he could claim some distant relationship to King David
The Almighty was a carpenter? I suppose omnipotence covers woodworking.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
And both are doomed.
Far from it, even Starmer now backs the monarchy and seems to be following largely Tory economic policy
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Cheeky fundraiser just arrived from "Not Nadine Dorries":
Nick, it took longer than Liz Truss’ time in office but I’ve finally resigned.
When I arrived in Mid Bedfordshire in 2005, I inherited a Conservative majority of 8,000. It's now 25,000, a legacy I am proud of.
It would be a terrible shame if the Labour Party undid all of that, wouldn't it?
Nick, I’m asking you, for my legacy’s sake - do not donate to the Labour Party’s by-election campaign fund today:
Don't click this button!
Nick, I understand. Just the other day in my resignation letter to Rishi Sunak, I said:
The Prime Minister has no mandate and puts his ambition above the stability of our country and the economy, the government is adrift and the British public are being taken for fools.
And much more.
I stand by it all! It’s a brilliant letter. Some people say I haven't been doing my job in months - well, now you know what I was working on!
But Nick, this really is about my legacy. Just because Rishi Sunak’s weak zombie government has no plan, doesn’t mean we can just let the Labour Party storm to victory in Mid Bedfordshire.
Please, do not donate to Labour’s Mid Bedfordshire campaign fund today:
Seriously, don't click.
Well, that’s me away. A letter and an email in three days is hard work you know.
I hope I’ve managed to convince you - do not donate to build a better Britain!
Thank you,
Not Nadine Dorries Former very busy MP for Mid Bedfordshire
I wish she was a former MP. She's still in office...
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
The Kims you mean. And the Mount Paektu bloodline.
On this one Sunil is actually on solid ground.
Christ, Kim Il Sung and Kim jong-Il have essentially been deified like Roman Emperors.
Christ wasn't royal either, he was a carpenter like his father but at least he could claim some distant relationship to King David
Most people can trace their roots back to a monarch of some sort.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
I thought it was common knowledge that Kim Jong Un was a direct descendant of Seongjong of Joseon.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
Tate is what happens when you tell millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default, but with little discussion of the actual issues.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
What's your evidence that Tate is a consequence of this supposed telling "millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default"?
Andrew Tate is responsible for being Andrew Tate. You deal with Tate's misogyny by telling people misogyny is wrong, not by soft pedalling on misogyny.
Andrew Tate is going to keep on being Andrew Tate.
The rest of society needs to get around the idea that Andrew Tate is bad, and offer their own, better, vision of life to his supporters.
Agreed, and we don't do that by excusing the far right and their conspiracies.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
Tate is what happens when you tell millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default, but with little discussion of the actual issues.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
What's your evidence that Tate is a consequence of this supposed telling "millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default"?
Andrew Tate is responsible for being Andrew Tate. You deal with Tate's misogyny by telling people misogyny is wrong, not by soft pedalling on misogyny.
I think Sandpit was referring to his popularity.
What is the evidence that his popularity is caused this way?
This is just highly dubious "backlash" theory.
I don't really know anything about him. Just clarifying what I think Sandpit meant.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
Looking at that polling data if we assume that there's about 25% who are unsure if they think Trump is guilty or innocent.
And if there's a third who would be less likely to support trump if he's found guilty then that would be a third of a quarter of the electorate, approximately 8%, less likely to vote for Trump.
Now if even half of those 8% did change their vote in 2024 then Trump's chances of winning must be close to zero.
A rough calculation and assuming Trump is found guilty.
The question we haven't asked is: what if Trump is found not guilty?
Given the US system of Jury challenging I find it difficult to believe they will even find a jury to consider these cases. I mean where in the US today can you find a dozen people who can honestly say they have no pre-conceived opinion of Trump for good or bad?
The Jean Carroll case did fine, as did the Trump Organization tax fraud case. The grand juries for the documents case, the Georgia case and the main election interference case worked.
Not by any means an expert here but a brief look at this appears to show that the grounds for challenge of a Grand Jury member are very different to those for a normal jury. I had a look at couple of examples - Arizona and Virginia - and in both cases it says that the only grounds for challenging a member of a Grand Jury are that they are not qualified to sit on that matter. No reference is made to bias.
But all the examples I can find of normal jury selection seem to show that they can be challenged on grounds of partiallity or bias.
As for the other cases, I am not sure they would be considerd as high profile as a case where Trump himself was the defendent.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
Have we had the one about 'if you don't support nuking Buenos Aires you're a traitor' yet?
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
Tate is what happens when you tell millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default, but with little discussion of the actual issues.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
What's your evidence that Tate is a consequence of this supposed telling "millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default"?
Andrew Tate is responsible for being Andrew Tate. You deal with Tate's misogyny by telling people misogyny is wrong, not by soft pedalling on misogyny.
Andrew Tate is going to keep on being Andrew Tate.
The rest of society needs to get around the idea that Andrew Tate is bad, and offer their own, better, vision of life to his supporters.
The problem is that people like Tate sell an 'easy' vision. It's easy to say it's not *your* fault; it's *theirs*. If women don't find you attractive, it must be down to the fact they've got jobs, not that you're a slob who washes once a week and/or wants to be out every night with their mates and/or spends five hours a day gaming.
The vision is the problem: the lie you can be richer and more successful than everyone else with little effort. His prescription on how to achieve that lie is odious.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
"Fraser" is a common surname in the north of Scotland. The Norman Knight Sir Strawberry made his mark.
(Not strictly historically accurate, but told as fact in school)
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
Tate is what happens when you tell millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default, but with little discussion of the actual issues.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
What's your evidence that Tate is a consequence of this supposed telling "millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default"?
Andrew Tate is responsible for being Andrew Tate. You deal with Tate's misogyny by telling people misogyny is wrong, not by soft pedalling on misogyny.
Andrew Tate is going to keep on being Andrew Tate.
The rest of society needs to get around the idea that Andrew Tate is bad, and offer their own, better, vision of life to his supporters.
It seems to me his supporters are mostly single young males, so that requires some female involvement too
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
Have we had the one about 'if you don't support nuking Buenos Aires you're a traitor' yet?
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
Tate is what happens when you tell millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default, but with little discussion of the actual issues.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
What's your evidence that Tate is a consequence of this supposed telling "millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default"?
Andrew Tate is responsible for being Andrew Tate. You deal with Tate's misogyny by telling people misogyny is wrong, not by soft pedalling on misogyny.
Andrew Tate is going to keep on being Andrew Tate.
The rest of society needs to get around the idea that Andrew Tate is bad, and offer their own, better, vision of life to his supporters.
Agreed, and we don't do that by excusing the far right and their conspiracies.
Yes, but “far right and their conspiracies” needs to be adequately debunked.
Remember that a decade ago, some weirdo called Alex Jones was going on about the paedophile island. …
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
Have we had the one about 'if you don't support nuking Buenos Aires you're a traitor' yet?
Well if you were in charge not only would the Falklands have fallen but Putin would probably have got to London by lunchtime
I wish she was a former MP. She's still in office...
No, technically she's not. You're only an MP from the moment you're sworn in to the moment you resign. A similar regulation had a consequence for the "class of 97" - MPs elected at the start of May 1997 and swept out in May 2010. We all lost a year of pension contributions (I know, world's smallest violin) because technically we were not in office before we were sworn in.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
Have we had the one about 'if you don't support nuking Buenos Aires you're a traitor' yet?
Well if you were in charge not only would the Falklands have fallen but Putin would probably have got to London by lunchtime
Ok, we have now.
I'll admit that was my fault and go and book myself a cabin on the Ullapool-Inverness ferry.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
Plain wrong. You're using the wrong type of category. You need the nested cladistic variety: Primates, Haplorhines, Anthropoidea or Catarrhini to suit.
Looking at that polling data if we assume that there's about 25% who are unsure if they think Trump is guilty or innocent.
And if there's a third who would be less likely to support trump if he's found guilty then that would be a third of a quarter of the electorate, approximately 8%, less likely to vote for Trump.
Now if even half of those 8% did change their vote in 2024 then Trump's chances of winning must be close to zero.
A rough calculation and assuming Trump is found guilty.
The question we haven't asked is: what if Trump is found not guilty?
Given the US system of Jury challenging I find it difficult to believe they will even find a jury to consider these cases. I mean where in the US today can you find a dozen people who can honestly say they have no pre-conceived opinion of Trump for good or bad?
The Jean Carroll case did fine, as did the Trump Organization tax fraud case. The grand juries for the documents case, the Georgia case and the main election interference case worked.
Not by any means an expert here but a brief look at this appears to show that the grounds for challenge of a Grand Jury member are very different to those for a normal jury. I had a look at couple of examples - Arizona and Virginia - and in both cases it says that the only grounds for challenging a member of a Grand Jury are that they are not qualified to sit on that matter. No reference is made to bias.
But all the examples I can find of normal jury selection seem to show that they can be challenged on grounds of partiallity or bias.
As for the other cases, I am not sure they would be considerd as high profile as a case where Trump himself was the defendent.
I wish she was a former MP. She's still in office...
No, technically she's not. You're only an MP from the moment you're sworn in to the moment you resign. A similar regulation had a consequence for the "class of 97" - MPs elected at the start of May 1997 and swept out in May 2010. We all lost a year of pension contributions (I know, world's smallest violin) because technically we were not in office before we were sworn in.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
In any case, that doesn't mean that KCIII is some sort of evolutionary innovation.
And I wouldn't use monkey "leaders" as a justification. They're not hereditary in the royal sense. Even without using olive oil. Very much a free for all.
I wish she was a former MP. She's still in office...
No, technically she's not. You're only an MP from the moment you're sworn in to the moment you resign. A similar regulation had a consequence for the "class of 97" - MPs elected at the start of May 1997 and swept out in May 2010. We all lost a year of pension contributions (I know, world's smallest violin) because technically we were not in office before we were sworn in.
She hasn't resigned yet. She's applied to resign.
MPs do NOT resign. Instead, they apply for an office of profit under the Crown.
According to wiki, Mad Nad has NOT (yet) been appointed as Steward of one of the stewardships used for this purpose.
All part of the wonderfully wacky (also visa versa) Great British (so called) Constitution.
I wish she was a former MP. She's still in office...
No, technically she's not. You're only an MP from the moment you're sworn in to the moment you resign. A similar regulation had a consequence for the "class of 97" - MPs elected at the start of May 1997 and swept out in May 2010. We all lost a year of pension contributions (I know, world's smallest violin) because technically we were not in office before we were sworn in.
She hasn't resigned yet. She's applied to resign.
MPs do NOT resign. Instead, they apply for an office of profit under the Crown.
According to wiki, Mad Nad has NOT (yet) been appointed as Steward of one of the stewardships used for this purpose.
All part of the wonderfully wacky (also visa versa) Great British (so called) Constitution.
American Bully dogs are responsible for 73% of dog attack deaths since 2022, despite forming a tiny part of our canine population, and have already killed five people this year
I wish she was a former MP. She's still in office...
No, technically she's not. You're only an MP from the moment you're sworn in to the moment you resign. A similar regulation had a consequence for the "class of 97" - MPs elected at the start of May 1997 and swept out in May 2010. We all lost a year of pension contributions (I know, world's smallest violin) because technically we were not in office before we were sworn in.
She hasn't resigned yet. She's applied to resign.
Has she even done that?
Isn't the latest that she's technically only written a newspaper column in the form of a resignation letter?
Looking at that polling data if we assume that there's about 25% who are unsure if they think Trump is guilty or innocent.
And if there's a third who would be less likely to support trump if he's found guilty then that would be a third of a quarter of the electorate, approximately 8%, less likely to vote for Trump.
Now if even half of those 8% did change their vote in 2024 then Trump's chances of winning must be close to zero.
A rough calculation and assuming Trump is found guilty.
The question we haven't asked is: what if Trump is found not guilty?
Given the US system of Jury challenging I find it difficult to believe they will even find a jury to consider these cases. I mean where in the US today can you find a dozen people who can honestly say they have no pre-conceived opinion of Trump for good or bad?
The Jean Carroll case did fine, as did the Trump Organization tax fraud case. The grand juries for the documents case, the Georgia case and the main election interference case worked.
Not by any means an expert here but a brief look at this appears to show that the grounds for challenge of a Grand Jury member are very different to those for a normal jury. I had a look at couple of examples - Arizona and Virginia - and in both cases it says that the only grounds for challenging a member of a Grand Jury are that they are not qualified to sit on that matter. No reference is made to bias.
But all the examples I can find of normal jury selection seem to show that they can be challenged on grounds of partiallity or bias.
As for the other cases, I am not sure they would be considerd as high profile as a case where Trump himself was the defendent.
Trump was the defendant in the Jean Carroll case.
Apologies. Yes you are right. I still think this will be a whole different order of a problem.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
Plain wrong. You're using the wrong type of category. You need the nested cladistic variety: Primates, Haplorhines, Anthropoidea or Catarrhini to suit.
You are disputing with one of the duller minds of the 18th century.
I wish she was a former MP. She's still in office...
No, technically she's not. You're only an MP from the moment you're sworn in to the moment you resign. A similar regulation had a consequence for the "class of 97" - MPs elected at the start of May 1997 and swept out in May 2010. We all lost a year of pension contributions (I know, world's smallest violin) because technically we were not in office before we were sworn in.
She hasn't resigned yet. She's applied to resign.
Has she even done that?
Isn't the latest that she's technically only written a newspaper column in the form of a resignation letter?
They did have a funny debate when a SF MP resigned, without applying for one of the relevant offices, but the Speaker took their request as being such an application, with people speculating what if someone just said they were resigning and changed their mind, or were joking, and yet the Speaker accepted it as a real resignation.
I wish she was a former MP. She's still in office...
No, technically she's not. You're only an MP from the moment you're sworn in to the moment you resign. A similar regulation had a consequence for the "class of 97" - MPs elected at the start of May 1997 and swept out in May 2010. We all lost a year of pension contributions (I know, world's smallest violin) because technically we were not in office before we were sworn in.
She hasn't resigned yet. She's applied to resign.
Has she even done that?
Isn't the latest that she's technically only written a newspaper column in the form of a resignation letter?
They did have a funny debate when a SF MP resigned, without applying for one of the relevant offices, but the Speaker took their request as being such an application, with people speculating what if someone just said they were resigning and changed their mind, or were joking, and yet the Speaker accepted it as a real resignation.
Would have been quite fun if Hunt had called Dorries' bluff by appointing her to it when she announced her departure first, and then when she objected pointed out she had the right to stand in the by-election if she resigned her office of profit.
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
Tate is what happens when you tell millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default, but with little discussion of the actual issues.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
What's your evidence that Tate is a consequence of this supposed telling "millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default"?
Andrew Tate is responsible for being Andrew Tate. You deal with Tate's misogyny by telling people misogyny is wrong, not by soft pedalling on misogyny.
Andrew Tate is going to keep on being Andrew Tate.
The rest of society needs to get around the idea that Andrew Tate is bad, and offer their own, better, vision of life to his supporters.
Agreed, and we don't do that by excusing the far right and their conspiracies.
Yes, but “far right and their conspiracies” needs to be adequately debunked.
Remember that a decade ago, some weirdo called Alex Jones was going on about the paedophile island. …
We were discussing Jim Caviezel the other day. I said he was a right wing conspiracist. You said that claim was a left wing conspiracy. I provided evidence. You suggested he was quoted out of context, but couldn't provide any explanatory context, and eventually retreated to saying he's a nutty actor so it doesn't matter.
So, it seems to me that your threshold for an adequate debunking is somewhat... asymmetric.
Cheeky fundraiser just arrived from "Not Nadine Dorries":
Nick, it took longer than Liz Truss’ time in office but I’ve finally resigned.
When I arrived in Mid Bedfordshire in 2005, I inherited a Conservative majority of 8,000. It's now 25,000, a legacy I am proud of.
It would be a terrible shame if the Labour Party undid all of that, wouldn't it?
Nick, I’m asking you, for my legacy’s sake - do not donate to the Labour Party’s by-election campaign fund today:
Don't click this button!
Nick, I understand. Just the other day in my resignation letter to Rishi Sunak, I said:
The Prime Minister has no mandate and puts his ambition above the stability of our country and the economy, the government is adrift and the British public are being taken for fools.
And much more.
I stand by it all! It’s a brilliant letter. Some people say I haven't been doing my job in months - well, now you know what I was working on!
But Nick, this really is about my legacy. Just because Rishi Sunak’s weak zombie government has no plan, doesn’t mean we can just let the Labour Party storm to victory in Mid Bedfordshire.
Please, do not donate to Labour’s Mid Bedfordshire campaign fund today:
Seriously, don't click.
Well, that’s me away. A letter and an email in three days is hard work you know.
I hope I’ve managed to convince you - do not donate to build a better Britain!
Thank you,
Not Nadine Dorries Former very busy MP for Mid Bedfordshire
This has five likes so I expect I'm in a minority here, but… this just reads a really quite juvenile attempt at humour to me.
Is this what the best minds of the next government think appeals to us?
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
Plain wrong. You're using the wrong type of category. You need the nested cladistic variety: Primates, Haplorhines, Anthropoidea or Catarrhini to suit.
You are disputing with one of the duller minds of the 18th century.
That comment is both rude and wrong. Our colleague’s ability to twist an argument is legendary.
American Bully dogs are responsible for 73% of dog attack deaths since 2022, despite forming a tiny part of our canine population, and have already killed five people this year
Don't know if you were here when we talked about it a week or two back?
Problem is defining a breed. It's like trying to get rid of curly hair by banning poodles when you can get any number of labradoodles.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
Plain wrong. You're using the wrong type of category. You need the nested cladistic variety: Primates, Haplorhines, Anthropoidea or Catarrhini to suit.
You are disputing with one of the duller minds of the 18th century.
That comment is both rude and wrong. Our colleague’s ability to twist an argument is legendary.
Also, from what he has said about his degree his real thing is the seventeenth century.
American Bully dogs are responsible for 73% of dog attack deaths since 2022, despite forming a tiny part of our canine population, and have already killed five people this year
1) Yes
2) Also update the legislation so it's more responsive to new breeds like this.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
Plain wrong. You're using the wrong type of category. You need the nested cladistic variety: Primates, Haplorhines, Anthropoidea or Catarrhini to suit.
You are disputing with one of the duller minds of the 18th century.
I wish she was a former MP. She's still in office...
No, technically she's not. You're only an MP from the moment you're sworn in to the moment you resign. A similar regulation had a consequence for the "class of 97" - MPs elected at the start of May 1997 and swept out in May 2010. We all lost a year of pension contributions (I know, world's smallest violin) because technically we were not in office before we were sworn in.
She hasn't resigned yet. She's applied to resign.
MPs do NOT resign. Instead, they apply for an office of profit under the Crown.
According to wiki, Mad Nad has NOT (yet) been appointed as Steward of one of the stewardships used for this purpose.
All part of the wonderfully wacky (also visa versa) Great British (so called) Constitution.
There was a Sinn Fein MP who said this is all nonsense and wrote a letter saying "I resign". This was interpreted as wishing to be appointed to an office of profit under the Crown. Which goes to show that, yes, MPs effectively do resign.
But you're right that Dorries has written saying she wishes to be so appointed, but she has not yet been appointed, so I would think she is still an MP.
Cheeky fundraiser just arrived from "Not Nadine Dorries":
Nick, it took longer than Liz Truss’ time in office but I’ve finally resigned.
When I arrived in Mid Bedfordshire in 2005, I inherited a Conservative majority of 8,000. It's now 25,000, a legacy I am proud of.
It would be a terrible shame if the Labour Party undid all of that, wouldn't it?
Nick, I’m asking you, for my legacy’s sake - do not donate to the Labour Party’s by-election campaign fund today:
Don't click this button!
Nick, I understand. Just the other day in my resignation letter to Rishi Sunak, I said:
The Prime Minister has no mandate and puts his ambition above the stability of our country and the economy, the government is adrift and the British public are being taken for fools.
And much more.
I stand by it all! It’s a brilliant letter. Some people say I haven't been doing my job in months - well, now you know what I was working on!
But Nick, this really is about my legacy. Just because Rishi Sunak’s weak zombie government has no plan, doesn’t mean we can just let the Labour Party storm to victory in Mid Bedfordshire.
Please, do not donate to Labour’s Mid Bedfordshire campaign fund today:
Seriously, don't click.
Well, that’s me away. A letter and an email in three days is hard work you know.
I hope I’ve managed to convince you - do not donate to build a better Britain!
Thank you,
Not Nadine Dorries Former very busy MP for Mid Bedfordshire
This has five likes so I expect I'm in a minority here, but… this just reads a really quite juvenile attempt at humour to me.
Is this what the best minds of the next government think appeals to us?
No, it's what they think appeals to Labour Party members.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
Plain wrong. You're using the wrong type of category. You need the nested cladistic variety: Primates, Haplorhines, Anthropoidea or Catarrhini to suit.
You are disputing with one of the duller minds of the 18th century.
That comment is both rude and wrong. Our colleague’s ability to twist an argument is legendary.
Also, from what he has said about his degree his real thing is the seventeenth century.
I missed that! Do I gather that was his final year’s work?
American Bully dogs are responsible for 73% of dog attack deaths since 2022, despite forming a tiny part of our canine population, and have already killed five people this year
1) Yes
2) Also update the legislation so it's more responsive to new breeds like this.
... legislation ... "new breed" ...
Even the ****ing Kennel Club doesn't recognise it. And the notion of a dog breed is pretty ropy at the best of times.
Though the Irish seem to manage to ban it, mind. So if they can do it ...
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
What’s in a name?
Technically, the Roman Empire never had a hereditary succession. But, it was clearly a monarchy.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
In any case, that doesn't mean that KCIII is some sort of evolutionary innovation.
And I wouldn't use monkey "leaders" as a justification. They're not hereditary in the royal sense. Even without using olive oil. Very much a free for all.
Which is a pointless comparison anyway given the real leader in the UK is Rishi Sunak who did get there after a free for all scrap with Boris and Truss and then has to do the same again with Starmer.
The King is just a constitutional figurehead head of state trained from birth for the role
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
Tate is what happens when you tell millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default, but with little discussion of the actual issues.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
What's your evidence that Tate is a consequence of this supposed telling "millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default"?
Andrew Tate is responsible for being Andrew Tate. You deal with Tate's misogyny by telling people misogyny is wrong, not by soft pedalling on misogyny.
Andrew Tate is going to keep on being Andrew Tate.
The rest of society needs to get around the idea that Andrew Tate is bad, and offer their own, better, vision of life to his supporters.
Andrew Tate with his systemic misogyny and racism would be quite at home in the Sandpit. It is no surprise that he sometimes claims to be Muslim.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
What’s in a name?
Technically, the Roman Empire never had a hereditary succession. But, it was clearly a monarchy.
No it wasn't, it had an Emperor who is just head of an Empire but that emerged from the Roman Republic. It was not a monarchy as such. Napoleon too was an Emperor not really a King
Cheeky fundraiser just arrived from "Not Nadine Dorries":
Nick, it took longer than Liz Truss’ time in office but I’ve finally resigned.
When I arrived in Mid Bedfordshire in 2005, I inherited a Conservative majority of 8,000. It's now 25,000, a legacy I am proud of.
It would be a terrible shame if the Labour Party undid all of that, wouldn't it?
Nick, I’m asking you, for my legacy’s sake - do not donate to the Labour Party’s by-election campaign fund today:
Don't click this button!
Nick, I understand. Just the other day in my resignation letter to Rishi Sunak, I said:
The Prime Minister has no mandate and puts his ambition above the stability of our country and the economy, the government is adrift and the British public are being taken for fools.
And much more.
I stand by it all! It’s a brilliant letter. Some people say I haven't been doing my job in months - well, now you know what I was working on!
But Nick, this really is about my legacy. Just because Rishi Sunak’s weak zombie government has no plan, doesn’t mean we can just let the Labour Party storm to victory in Mid Bedfordshire.
Please, do not donate to Labour’s Mid Bedfordshire campaign fund today:
Seriously, don't click.
Well, that’s me away. A letter and an email in three days is hard work you know.
I hope I’ve managed to convince you - do not donate to build a better Britain!
Thank you,
Not Nadine Dorries Former very busy MP for Mid Bedfordshire
This has five likes so I expect I'm in a minority here, but… this just reads a really quite juvenile attempt at humour to me.
Is this what the best minds of the next government think appeals to us?
It's all attack, no vision. It complains Sunak has no vision (something I agree with, albeit with caveats of his having to constantly firefight), but offers zero of Labour's vision. It also comes somewhat over as dishonest, as if it comes from Dorries.
It tells me zero things Labour wants to do, and zero reasons their candidate would be different from any other party's.
Negative campaigning, and a negative for Labour.
(As a general aside, if the money does not get spent on their Mid Bedfordshire campaign, is that problematic? If they got (say) £100k in donations, and did not spend it on that campaign, is that dishonest?)
Sounds procedurally dicey, but got to keep the big man happy.
Kevin McCarthy plans to start the impeachment process against Biden without a vote.
CNN reports that Speaker McCarthy plans to launch the impeachment inquiry against President Biden at the end of September without a formal vote in the House as he lacks the majority to pass this resolution since some Republican members from swing districts oppose it. https://nitter.net/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1696177442551980080#m
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
Plain wrong. You're using the wrong type of category. You need the nested cladistic variety: Primates, Haplorhines, Anthropoidea or Catarrhini to suit.
You are disputing with one of the duller minds of the 18th century.
That comment is both rude and wrong. Our colleague’s ability to twist an argument is legendary.
Also, from what he has said about his degree his real thing is the seventeenth century.
Modernist woke guff
All Proper Qualifications were granted before October 21, 4004 BC
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
Plain wrong. You're using the wrong type of category. You need the nested cladistic variety: Primates, Haplorhines, Anthropoidea or Catarrhini to suit.
You are disputing with one of the duller minds of the 18th century.
That comment is both rude and wrong. Our colleague’s ability to twist an argument is legendary.
Also, from what he has said about his degree his real thing is the seventeenth century.
Modernist woke guff
All Proper Qualifications were granted before October 21, 4004 BC
American Bully dogs are responsible for 73% of dog attack deaths since 2022, despite forming a tiny part of our canine population, and have already killed five people this year
1) Yes
2) Also update the legislation so it's more responsive to new breeds like this.
... legislation ... "new breed" ...
Even the ****ing Kennel Club doesn't recognise it. And the notion of a dog breed is pretty ropy at the best of times.
Though the Irish seem to manage to ban it, mind. So if they can do it ...
Cheeky fundraiser just arrived from "Not Nadine Dorries":
Nick, it took longer than Liz Truss’ time in office but I’ve finally resigned.
When I arrived in Mid Bedfordshire in 2005, I inherited a Conservative majority of 8,000. It's now 25,000, a legacy I am proud of.
It would be a terrible shame if the Labour Party undid all of that, wouldn't it?
Nick, I’m asking you, for my legacy’s sake - do not donate to the Labour Party’s by-election campaign fund today:
Don't click this button!
Nick, I understand. Just the other day in my resignation letter to Rishi Sunak, I said:
The Prime Minister has no mandate and puts his ambition above the stability of our country and the economy, the government is adrift and the British public are being taken for fools.
And much more.
I stand by it all! It’s a brilliant letter. Some people say I haven't been doing my job in months - well, now you know what I was working on!
But Nick, this really is about my legacy. Just because Rishi Sunak’s weak zombie government has no plan, doesn’t mean we can just let the Labour Party storm to victory in Mid Bedfordshire.
Please, do not donate to Labour’s Mid Bedfordshire campaign fund today:
Seriously, don't click.
Well, that’s me away. A letter and an email in three days is hard work you know.
I hope I’ve managed to convince you - do not donate to build a better Britain!
Thank you,
Not Nadine Dorries Former very busy MP for Mid Bedfordshire
This has five likes so I expect I'm in a minority here, but… this just reads a really quite juvenile attempt at humour to me.
Is this what the best minds of the next government think appeals to us?
It's all attack, no vision. It complains Sunak has no vision (something I agree with, albeit with caveats of his having to constantly firefight), but offers zero of Labour's vision. It also comes somewhat over as dishonest, as if it comes from Dorries.
It tells me zero things Labour wants to do, and zero reasons their candidate would be different from any other party's.
Negative campaigning, and a negative for Labour.
(As a general aside, if the money does not get spent on their Mid Bedfordshire campaign, is that problematic? If they got (say) £100k in donations, and did not spend it on that campaign, is that dishonest?)
Would think it's OK if it gets spent on Mid Beds at the next election, whenver that is. But they may give an option. If there is an appeal from the Friends of Barchester Uni Library to buy the Mss of so and so, and some rich tech bro bags them at auction, there is usually a tick box to say (a) I want my money back or (b) OK to spend it on other purchases.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
In any case, that doesn't mean that KCIII is some sort of evolutionary innovation.
And I wouldn't use monkey "leaders" as a justification. They're not hereditary in the royal sense. Even without using olive oil. Very much a free for all.
Which is a pointless comparison anyway given the real leader in the UK is Rishi Sunak who did get there after a free for all scrap with Boris and Truss and then has to do the same again with Starmer.
The King is just a constitutional figurehead head of state trained from birth for the role
American Bully dogs are responsible for 73% of dog attack deaths since 2022, despite forming a tiny part of our canine population, and have already killed five people this year
1) Yes
2) Also update the legislation so it's more responsive to new breeds like this.
... legislation ... "new breed" ...
Even the ****ing Kennel Club doesn't recognise it. And the notion of a dog breed is pretty ropy at the best of times.
Though the Irish seem to manage to ban it, mind. So if they can do it ...
American Bully dogs are responsible for 73% of dog attack deaths since 2022, despite forming a tiny part of our canine population, and have already killed five people this year
1) Yes
2) Also update the legislation so it's more responsive to new breeds like this.
... legislation ... "new breed" ...
Even the ****ing Kennel Club doesn't recognise it. And the notion of a dog breed is pretty ropy at the best of times.
Though the Irish seem to manage to ban it, mind. So if they can do it ...
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
Plain wrong. You're using the wrong type of category. You need the nested cladistic variety: Primates, Haplorhines, Anthropoidea or Catarrhini to suit.
You are disputing with one of the duller minds of the 18th century.
That comment is both rude and wrong. Our colleague’s ability to twist an argument is legendary.
Also, from what he has said about his degree his real thing is the seventeenth century.
Modernist woke guff
All Proper Qualifications were granted before October 21, 4004 BC
That date clearly means the world to you.
I really wish one computer OS had chosen that as its epoch date...
On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.
There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.
(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)
American Bully dogs are responsible for 73% of dog attack deaths since 2022, despite forming a tiny part of our canine population, and have already killed five people this year
1) Yes
2) Also update the legislation so it's more responsive to new breeds like this.
... legislation ... "new breed" ...
Even the ****ing Kennel Club doesn't recognise it. And the notion of a dog breed is pretty ropy at the best of times.
Though the Irish seem to manage to ban it, mind. So if they can do it ...
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
What’s in a name?
Technically, the Roman Empire never had a hereditary succession. But, it was clearly a monarchy.
No it wasn't, it had an Emperor who is just head of an Empire but that emerged from the Roman Republic. It was not a monarchy as such. Napoleon too was an Emperor not really a King
Aristotle would have had no difficulty defining both empires as monarchies, with vestigial Republican trappings.
American Bully dogs are responsible for 73% of dog attack deaths since 2022, despite forming a tiny part of our canine population, and have already killed five people this year
1) Yes
2) Also update the legislation so it's more responsive to new breeds like this.
... legislation ... "new breed" ...
Even the ****ing Kennel Club doesn't recognise it. And the notion of a dog breed is pretty ropy at the best of times.
Though the Irish seem to manage to ban it, mind. So if they can do it ...
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
Plain wrong. You're using the wrong type of category. You need the nested cladistic variety: Primates, Haplorhines, Anthropoidea or Catarrhini to suit.
You are disputing with one of the duller minds of the 18th century.
That comment is both rude and wrong. Our colleague’s ability to twist an argument is legendary.
Also, from what he has said about his degree his real thing is the seventeenth century.
Modernist woke guff
All Proper Qualifications were granted before October 21, 4004 BC
This has five likes so I expect I'm in a minority here, but… this just reads a really quite juvenile attempt at humour to me.
Is this what the best minds of the next government think appeals to us?
It's all attack, no vision. It complains Sunak has no vision (something I agree with, albeit with caveats of his having to constantly firefight), but offers zero of Labour's vision. It also comes somewhat over as dishonest, as if it comes from Dorries.
It tells me zero things Labour wants to do, and zero reasons their candidate would be different from any other party's.
Negative campaigning, and a negative for Labour.
Well, like I think all the members of different parties here I get fund-raising appeals every week or two, and they're very specifically aimed at the party faithful and usually very boring (I see the Tory ones too, because I've run a stand at the Tory conference in my day job). They aren't intended to be campaigning, informative policy briefings to the general public, and personally I appreciate a bit of amusing creativity for a change. It *obviously* doesn't come from Dorries, not least as it's headed "Not Nadine Dorries".
Just posted here for amusement, rather than to persuade anyone!
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
Plain wrong. You're using the wrong type of category. You need the nested cladistic variety: Primates, Haplorhines, Anthropoidea or Catarrhini to suit.
You are disputing with one of the duller minds of the 18th century.
That comment is both rude and wrong. Our colleague’s ability to twist an argument is legendary.
Also, from what he has said about his degree his real thing is the seventeenth century.
Modernist woke guff
All Proper Qualifications were granted before October 21, 4004 BC
American Bully dogs are responsible for 73% of dog attack deaths since 2022, despite forming a tiny part of our canine population, and have already killed five people this year
1) Yes
2) Also update the legislation so it's more responsive to new breeds like this.
... legislation ... "new breed" ...
Even the ****ing Kennel Club doesn't recognise it. And the notion of a dog breed is pretty ropy at the best of times.
Though the Irish seem to manage to ban it, mind. So if they can do it ...
Maybe invert it and specify a list of approved breeds?
Nah. There are so many mongrel breeds which are no hassle at all. I have had quite a few Heinz 57 varieties in my time and they have often been of a better temprament than pure breeds.
1. During WW II, some American soldiers worried about getting medals from the French -- because of the cheek kissing part.
2. When then-President Obama visited Myanmar, he hugged Aung San Suu Kyi on stage. Shortly afterwards I read that hugs in that nation were something a husband and wife did -- in private.
3. (For Nick Palmer): A few years ago, the WSJ had an article on Google's bicycles at their sprawling Mountain View campus. The campus is so large that the company provided bicycles for employees to get around.
And some people in Mountain View decided to treat them as community bicycles and "borrowed" them, whenever convenient. So Google had to keep sending out people to retrieve the bicycles. (I'm disappointed that the Google operation a few blocks from where I live has not provided us locals with similar bicycles.)
American Bully dogs are responsible for 73% of dog attack deaths since 2022, despite forming a tiny part of our canine population, and have already killed five people this year
1) Yes
2) Also update the legislation so it's more responsive to new breeds like this.
... legislation ... "new breed" ...
Even the ****ing Kennel Club doesn't recognise it. And the notion of a dog breed is pretty ropy at the best of times.
Though the Irish seem to manage to ban it, mind. So if they can do it ...
Maybe invert it and specify a list of approved breeds?
Nah. There are so many mongrel breeds which are no hassle at all. I have had quite a few Heinz 57 varieties in my time and they have often been of a better temprament than pure breeds.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
And both are doomed.
Far from it, even Starmer now backs the monarchy and seems to be following largely Tory economic policy
Isn't this just a left version of Trussism? Trussism collapsed because she wanted cuts and growth without fiscal rectitude. This version wants increased expenditure and growth without fiscal rectitude.
The centre ground of fiscal restraint and decent (Labourite) government is quite narrow. Almost everyone seems to attack it, no-one seems to have figures to back up the attack.
This has five likes so I expect I'm in a minority here, but… this just reads a really quite juvenile attempt at humour to me.
Is this what the best minds of the next government think appeals to us?
It's all attack, no vision. It complains Sunak has no vision (something I agree with, albeit with caveats of his having to constantly firefight), but offers zero of Labour's vision. It also comes somewhat over as dishonest, as if it comes from Dorries.
It tells me zero things Labour wants to do, and zero reasons their candidate would be different from any other party's.
Negative campaigning, and a negative for Labour.
Well, like I think all the members of different parties here I get fund-raising appeals every week or two, and they're very specifically aimed at the party faithful and usually very boring (I see the Tory ones too, because I've run a stand at the Tory conference in my day job). They aren't intended to be campaigning, informative policy briefings to the general public, and personally I appreciate a bit of amusing creativity for a change. It *obviously* doesn't come from Dorries, not least as it's headed "Not Nadine Dorries".
Just posted here for amusement, rather than to persuade anyone!
It's not here that's the matter, it's the voters. Do you have a piccie of the leaflet? For an oldie and baddie, what are the predominant colours on the leaflet?
On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.
There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.
(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)
North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.
Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.
And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.
Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.
As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.
> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.
> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.
Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
I thought it was common knowledge that Kim Jong Un was a direct descendant of Seongjong of Joseon.
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
Kim Jong-un is the son of Kim Jong-il who was the son of Kim Sun-il.
And not one of them have or had royal or even aristocratic blood
Nor do any UK royals or aristocrats, ultimately. Mediaeval robbers and thieves, basically.
Rubbish, the King has blood from the English, Scottish, Greek and Russian royal families and the House of Hanover
And where do those royal families come from? Nowhere, just mediaeval warlords.
On that argument you may as well just say we are all monkeys, given according to Darwin that is where we came from. Though even they have leaders
Plain wrong. You're using the wrong type of category. You need the nested cladistic variety: Primates, Haplorhines, Anthropoidea or Catarrhini to suit.
You are disputing with one of the duller minds of the 18th century.
That comment is both rude and wrong. Our colleague’s ability to twist an argument is legendary.
Also, from what he has said about his degree his real thing is the seventeenth century.
Modernist woke guff
All Proper Qualifications were granted before October 21, 4004 BC
On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.
There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.
(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)
North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.
Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.
And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.
Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.
As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.
> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.
> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.
Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.
They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.
I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/ .. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China. He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….
The Telegraph reports record demand for private tutors, as private schools are very expensive and grammar schools hard to get into (and only exist in a couple of places).
Good news for @ydoethur and @Dura_Ace but bad news for educational equality?
Round here, private education is mainly seen as a number of shops offering after school tuition in various subjects (and separately, in Koranic studies) but this low-level provision has so far largely escaped political controversy over independent teaching.
There is no such thing as educational equality except in the eyes of socialist ideologues. Some are more academic than others, just as some are better at sport or music than others.
Plus even if you abolished all private, grammar and free schools middle class parents would just buy property in the most expensive catchment areas of the best schools or go to church more often for the Vicar's reference for a top church school
Excellent suggestion to abolish the church schools, part of the problem sorted. Thank you.
Absolutely not, we need more church schools, more grammar schools, more private schools, more academies, more free schools and more choice.
The more choice parents have beyond the one size fits all socialist idea of a comprehensive school the better
You refer to Comprehensives as a socialist idea and it is certainly true that does result in less choice (although it is arguable whether there really is choice for most people to go to a church school or a grammar school or a private school as all have significant restrictions that prevent most from attending them).
You also have in the past accepted I am much more of a free market person than yourself and I think you are right in that conclusion, so I'm definitely not socialist.
How do you then rationalise that I am very pro comprehensives and anti grammar schools?
One possible answer is that I am an idiot, but I'm hoping that isn't your conclusion.
PS That wasn't an invitation to get into a discussion about Grammar schools which I won't do, but the rationalisation this is a socialist idea (I do accept those in favour of Grammars are from the right, but not the mainstream Conservatives who have implemented and supported Comprehensives)
I assume you are not also anti academies, anti free schools and anti church schools too as most socialists are?
MONARCHY = SOCIALISM!
MONARCHY = TORYISM.
State control of the economy= Socialism
Unelected, hereditary rulers = SOCIALISM!
No it doesn't, Stalin wasn't a hereditary ruler not was Mao they were both socialist communists.
Corbyn was a socialist but wasn't a hereditary leader of the Labour Party either.
None had royal or aristocratic blood either
North Korea = hereditary SOCIALIST monarchy!
What royal or aristocratic blood do the Jong Uns have?
I thought it was common knowledge that Kim Jong Un was a direct descendant of Seongjong of Joseon.
This has five likes so I expect I'm in a minority here, but… this just reads a really quite juvenile attempt at humour to me.
Is this what the best minds of the next government think appeals to us?
It's all attack, no vision. It complains Sunak has no vision (something I agree with, albeit with caveats of his having to constantly firefight), but offers zero of Labour's vision. It also comes somewhat over as dishonest, as if it comes from Dorries.
It tells me zero things Labour wants to do, and zero reasons their candidate would be different from any other party's.
Negative campaigning, and a negative for Labour.
Well, like I think all the members of different parties here I get fund-raising appeals every week or two, and they're very specifically aimed at the party faithful and usually very boring (I see the Tory ones too, because I've run a stand at the Tory conference in my day job). They aren't intended to be campaigning, informative policy briefings to the general public, and personally I appreciate a bit of amusing creativity for a change. It *obviously* doesn't come from Dorries, not least as it's headed "Not Nadine Dorries".
Just posted here for amusement, rather than to persuade anyone!
It's not here that's the matter, it's the voters. Do you have a piccie of the leaflet? For an oldie and baddie, what are the predominant colours on the leaflet?
It's not a leaflet, just an email to party members.
On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.
There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.
(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)
North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.
Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.
And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.
Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.
As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.
> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.
> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.
Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.
They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.
I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/ .. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China. He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….
To call him naive would be overly generous.
Hardly naive, seeing as how pimping for Putin, along with splitting the GOP vote, is the quickest way to Trump's "heart".
Fascinating item by the Sky News Spanish correspondant this morning. Vox Popping shoppers etc in Madrid and finding most thought Rubiales had not really doen anything wrong. Interesting cultural differences.
I think this story is evidence of deranged the culture war has got. The BBC news coverage is laughable from an organisation that portrays itself as 'impartial'. It is just cheerleading for what it has decided is 'the right side of history'.
What "culture war"? How is it not being "impartial"? It is reporting the facts of the case, and there is no culture war here. Surely we all agree that women have the right to say no?
There is no "other side" unless there's a side that thinks that women exist to have men able to force themselves on them. Is there a side that thinks women don't need to consent to sexual activity? Is there a side that thinks if a woman objects, she should be threatened?
If there is another perspective, do you think it should be engaged with or discussed? IE the basis of his legal complaint against her, and that of the people that support him, of the disputes in Spanish society over gender, and how this has contributed to the popularity of 'far right' parties? If this perspective exists, how should it be treated - should it be assessed or just swept aside as abhorrent and repulsive?
This is not in any way to align myself with any point of view in this, but just to say that there is something there that needs to be understood - just as there is with the enduring popularity of Donald Trump and Andrew Tate.
It’s definitely an interesting exercise in seeing how cultural issues play out, in a relatively close neighbour such as Spain.
The average Spaniard appears to be relatively neutral on this kiss, but the Average Brit or American is very opinionated on the same subject.
There’s some evidence of a cultural backlash to the extreme wokery in the US this year (Bud Light, Target, “Rich Men North of Richmond”), the next year building up to the election will be really interesting to watch in that regard.
As others have said, we really don’t want to encourage the likes of Andrew Tate, which is what an extreme version of the backlash looks like.
Sorry, are you saying that standing up to misogyny caused Andrew Tate? Don't be ridiculous. Tate is not a backlash. Tate is a symptom of the the initial problem.
Tate is what happens when you tell millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default, but with little discussion of the actual issues.
He’s a monster and deserves to be in prison, but ignoring why millions of young men are attracted to him is a bad idea.
Donald Trump as president was merely the opening act, to what happens when there’s millions of disaffected and single young men in America.
Oh, and China has an even bigger problem coming down the line, as the consequences of ‘one child’ play out. How they deal with that, is a massive global issue.
What's your evidence that Tate is a consequence of this supposed telling "millions of young men that they’re misogynistic racists by default"?
Andrew Tate is responsible for being Andrew Tate. You deal with Tate's misogyny by telling people misogyny is wrong, not by soft pedalling on misogyny.
Andrew Tate is going to keep on being Andrew Tate.
The rest of society needs to get around the idea that Andrew Tate is bad, and offer their own, better, vision of life to his supporters.
The problem is that people like Tate sell an 'easy' vision. It's easy to say it's not *your* fault; it's *theirs*. If women don't find you attractive, it must be down to the fact they've got jobs, not that you're a slob who washes once a week and/or wants to be out every night with their mates and/or spends five hours a day gaming.
The vision is the problem: the lie you can be richer and more successful than everyone else with little effort. His prescription on how to achieve that lie is odious.
On topic: Trump supporters are rigging rules in some states to give him a better chance to win the nomination. For example: "Donald Trump’s presidential campaign notched a major victory Saturday when members of the California Republican executive committee voted to parcel out convention delegates based on the statewide vote next year — doing away with the state’s longtime system of awarding them by congressional district, which had been perceived as a more level playing field for lower-tiered candidates.
There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.
(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)
North Dakota is interesting. AND confirms my strong suspicion, that alleged 2024 candidate for GOP POTUS nomination, ND Gov. Doug Burgum, is just (another) shill pimping for Trump by helping further fractionate the Republican vote.
Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.
And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.
Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.
As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.
> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.
> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.
Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.
They are - but they’re not the worst of the field.
I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/ .. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China. He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….
To call him naive would be overly generous.
Bloody Hell!
He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.
In one campaign ad, former Vice President Mike Pence pretends to fill his pickup truck and blames Biden’s energy policy for “causing real hardship” for Americans, while ex-South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has vowed to bring oil production back to the United States.
And Sen. Tim Scott (R.-S.C.) railed last month on the Biden administration, which he asserted “has shut down energy production in America.”
“Why won’t this President tap into our abundant energy resources here at home and bring down prices at the pump?” he asked.
In fact, though, oil production from federal lands and waters has risen on Biden’s watch, reaching past 3 million barrels per day last year. The high mark during President Donald Trump’s term was 2.75 million barrels a day..
Comments
https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/inside-10m-yacht-linked-michelle-25103484
KYIV – The Aperol Spritz is so popular that the cocktail is practically synonymous with summer in Europe, where connoisseurs cram onto patios and around bar tops to guzzle down the bubbly, orange aperitif.
But in Ukraine, many bars that once served the quintessential drink are now boycotting it, citing the decision of the brand’s owner, Italy-based Campari Group, to continue operating in Russia.
“We had glasses with the Aperol name on them and we destroyed them or threw them in the trash,” said Pavlo Lavrukhin, 29, a bartender at Squat 17B, a hipster hangout tucked behind a residential building in central Kyiv.
Made up of two parts Aperol – a bitter whose core ingredients are gentian, rhubarb and cinchona – three parts prosecco and a dash of sparkling water, poured over a glass of ice and topped with an orange slice, the drink is viewed by devotees as the ideal antidote to sweltering weather.
Giving up the Spritz altogether is out of the question – Ukrainian fans love the cocktail. So, Squat 17B and other bars got rid of Aperol and are serving an alternative made with comparable orange spirits from other Italian companies instead. . . .
This is just highly dubious "backlash" theory.
That's what usually seems to happen in these cases in the US.
Australia where Labor still lead and Italy where Meloni leads are the only major western nations where incumbents are still clearly ahead in polls but those governments were only elected last year
Which of the following countries has the lowest rate of obesity?
USA, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, UK, South Africa, Iraq, Egypt, Turkey, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Uruguay, Chile, Argentina.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/obesity-rates-by-country
Nick, it took longer than Liz Truss’ time in office but I’ve finally resigned.
When I arrived in Mid Bedfordshire in 2005, I inherited a Conservative majority of 8,000. It's now 25,000, a legacy I am proud of.
It would be a terrible shame if the Labour Party undid all of that, wouldn't it?
Nick, I’m asking you, for my legacy’s sake - do not donate to the Labour Party’s by-election campaign fund today:
Don't click this button!
Nick, I understand. Just the other day in my resignation letter to Rishi Sunak, I said:
The Prime Minister has no mandate and puts his ambition above the stability of our country and the economy, the government is adrift and the British public are being taken for fools.
And much more.
I stand by it all! It’s a brilliant letter. Some people say I haven't been doing my job in months - well, now you know what I was working on!
But Nick, this really is about my legacy. Just because Rishi Sunak’s weak zombie government has no plan, doesn’t mean we can just let the Labour Party storm to victory in Mid Bedfordshire.
Please, do not donate to Labour’s Mid Bedfordshire campaign fund today:
Seriously, don't click.
Well, that’s me away. A letter and an email in three days is hard work you know.
I hope I’ve managed to convince you - do not donate to build a better Britain!
Thank you,
Not Nadine Dorries
Former very busy MP for Mid Bedfordshire
The rest of society needs to get around the idea that Andrew Tate is bad, and offer their own, better, vision of life to his supporters.
I suppose omnipotence covers woodworking.
The article doesn't mention tax increases which it surely ought to. Could the government loosen fiscal rules on investment? Not exactly a big bazooka.
But all the examples I can find of normal jury selection seem to show that they can be challenged on grounds of partiallity or bias.
As for the other cases, I am not sure they would be considerd as high profile as a case where Trump himself was the defendent.
The vision is the problem: the lie you can be richer and more successful than everyone else with little effort. His prescription on how to achieve that lie is odious.
(Not strictly historically accurate, but told as fact in school)
Remember that a decade ago, some weirdo called Alex Jones was going on about the paedophile island. …
I'll admit that was my fault and go and book myself a cabin on the Ullapool-Inverness ferry.
And I wouldn't use monkey "leaders" as a justification. They're not hereditary in the royal sense. Even without using olive oil. Very much a free for all.
According to wiki, Mad Nad has NOT (yet) been appointed as Steward of one of the stewardships used for this purpose.
All part of the wonderfully wacky (also visa versa) Great British (so called) Constitution.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brits-270-times-likelier-killed-30800611
American Bully dogs are responsible for 73% of dog attack deaths since 2022, despite forming a tiny part of our canine population, and have already killed five people this year
Isn't the latest that she's technically only written a newspaper column in the form of a resignation letter?
We were discussing Jim Caviezel the other day. I said he was a right wing conspiracist. You said that claim was a left wing conspiracy. I provided evidence. You suggested he was quoted out of context, but couldn't provide any explanatory context, and eventually retreated to saying he's a nutty actor so it doesn't matter.
So, it seems to me that your threshold for an adequate debunking is somewhat... asymmetric.
Is this what the best minds of the next government think appeals to us?
Problem is defining a breed. It's like trying to get rid of curly hair by banning poodles when you can get any number of labradoodles.
Dangerous Dogs Act, bad repeat thereof, anyone?
2) Also update the legislation so it's more responsive to new breeds like this.
But you're right that Dorries has written saying she wishes to be so appointed, but she has not yet been appointed, so I would think she is still an MP.
Even the ****ing Kennel Club doesn't recognise it. And the notion of a dog breed is pretty ropy at the best of times.
Though the Irish seem to manage to ban it, mind. So if they can do it ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Bully
Technically, the Roman Empire never had a hereditary succession. But, it was clearly a monarchy.
The King is just a constitutional figurehead head of state trained from birth for the role
It tells me zero things Labour wants to do, and zero reasons their candidate would be different from any other party's.
Negative campaigning, and a negative for Labour.
(As a general aside, if the money does not get spent on their Mid Bedfordshire campaign, is that problematic? If they got (say) £100k in donations, and did not spend it on that campaign, is that dishonest?)
Kevin McCarthy plans to start the impeachment process against Biden without a vote.
CNN reports that Speaker McCarthy plans to launch the impeachment inquiry against President Biden at the end of September without a formal vote in the House as he lacks the majority to pass this resolution since some Republican members from swing districts oppose it.
https://nitter.net/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1696177442551980080#m
All Proper Qualifications were granted before October 21, 4004 BC
The new rules give Trump a shot at clinching all of the state’s 169 delegates — more than any other state — while at the same time making it harder for a challenger like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) to make it a two-person race."
souce$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/30/trump-republican-delegates-primary/
There have been other rule changes that appear intended to help Trump in other states, including Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Idaho.
(As almost all of you grasped immediately, these rule changes make estimating the nomination odds, even more difficult, without a state-by-state analysis.)
Just posted here for amusement, rather than to persuade anyone!
Edit: not very new, after all, I see ...
1. During WW II, some American soldiers worried about getting medals from the French -- because of the cheek kissing part.
2. When then-President Obama visited Myanmar, he hugged Aung San Suu Kyi on stage. Shortly afterwards I read that hugs in that nation were something a husband and wife did -- in private.
3. (For Nick Palmer): A few years ago, the WSJ had an article on Google's bicycles at their sprawling Mountain View campus. The campus is so large that the company provided bicycles for employees to get around.
And some people in Mountain View decided to treat them as community bicycles and "borrowed" them, whenever convenient. So Google had to keep sending out people to retrieve the bicycles. (I'm disappointed that the Google operation a few blocks from where I live has not provided us locals with similar bicycles.)
The centre ground of fiscal restraint and decent (Labourite) government is quite narrow. Almost everyone seems to attack it, no-one seems to have figures to back up the attack.
Which is also the effective role being played by Tim Scott and Vivek Ramaswamy.
And also, ironically (or maybe not) by Mike Pence and Chris Christie.
Which does NOT preclude these "hopefuls" from having other agendas, notably for Scott and Ramaswamy anyway, the traditional prospect of VP pick OR cabinet OR other federal appointment under Trump's Second Cumming.
As for Pence and Christie, methinks that ego is bigger drive than any anti-Trumpism.
> Mike Pence thought (like some PBers) that being Trump's VP would make him the GOP's next-in-line for POTUS nomination; a 3rd-millennium version of Bush the Elder 1988 and Bob Dole 1996, albeit without a hint of the quality or ability of either.
> Chris Christie just likes basking his blimp-sized body AND ego in as much news coverage as he can generate.
Both of these being busted flushes whose achievements can only be discerned using a microscope.
The family appears to descend from a dung seller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Bo-hyon
Nothing wrong with that, but they’re a seriously twisted bunch, so qualify as a monarchy on that score at least, I guess.
I see Ramaswamy is already planning to hand over half of Ukraine.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4174713-ramaswamy-unveils-foreign-policy-platform-we-will-be-uncle-sucker-no-more/
.. Ramaswamy said he similarly would plan to visit Moscow as president in 2025 to negotiate terms to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. He said he would “accept” Russian control of the territories that its forces have taken and promise to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO in exchange for Russia ending its military alliance with China.
He said he would also end sanctions that have been placed on Russia and return it to the global market….
To call him naive would be overly generous.
He’s gone from being a sensible candidate to a total idiot, in the last fortnight.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/28/republicans-gas-prices-oil-production-00111626
… That hasn’t stopped GOP White House hopefuls from lambasting Biden and his energy policies, including the green incentives included in the climate law he signed a year ago.
In one campaign ad, former Vice President Mike Pence pretends to fill his pickup truck and blames Biden’s energy policy for “causing real hardship” for Americans, while ex-South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley has vowed to bring oil production back to the United States.
And Sen. Tim Scott (R.-S.C.) railed last month on the Biden administration, which he asserted “has shut down energy production in America.”
“Why won’t this President tap into our abundant energy resources here at home and bring down prices at the pump?” he asked.
In fact, though, oil production from federal lands and waters has risen on Biden’s watch, reaching past 3 million barrels per day last year. The high mark during President Donald Trump’s term was 2.75 million barrels a day..