Malmesbury - You may like this bit from Michael Hayden's "Playing to the Edge". When Obama objected to the lengths of the intelligence briefings he was getting, one of the intelligence people suggested they present him with haikus.
Same in Europe , only Uk is full of scumbags who drop everything at their arse, it typifies the state of the country perfectly.
Malc, I spend about 2-3 months of the year in Italy and believe me, the streets are not free of litter there.
We're pretty bad, but there is a bit of British exceptionalism going on when people decry us as uniquely bad, just as when we are presented as uniquely good at something else.
I think Scotland might be uniquely bad. Or at least Glasgow. Which could be firing @malcolmg’s anger
A friend of mine told me over drinks on Friday that he’d recently been to Glasgow and he was stunned by the obvious urban decay and deprivation. He said it was hard to believe it was in the UK
🤷♂️
He’s not especially political so he wasn’t trying to point score. Just expressing astonishment. And he’s used to grimier bits of London so it must be BAD
What are the chances that he hooked up with someone who trawls the internet looking for context-free pics of a decayed & deprived Glasgow? Amazing!
I had cause to walk the length of Kingsland Rd E2 a few weeks ago, and while it was interesting, vibrant etc, it was also manky as fck. Cities tend to be like that.
Believe it or not, you're entirely wrong. I don't WANT Glasgow to be a cesspit just to score points off the Nats. I may do that on here for bantz but I am a proud Briton, and Glasgow is a proud city in Britain. I want every part of the country to prosper and look good
Also, Glasgow is a great city, I know it quite well. Beautiful Victorian buildings, 2nd city of the empire and all that, Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Alisdair Gray's Lanark, it's full of character and noble architecture and the people are genuinely funny. Couldn't live there coz of the wintry dark but nonetheless I admire it, it's like a Scottish Newcastle but possibly grander. I don't like to think of it in decay
Bit of a protesting too much vibe there.
What I would accept is that Glaswegians, much as I love them and our city, are clatty bastards. They moan about fly tipping and litter without having a good long look in the mirror. The council are a bit of a mess, but hardly surprising as they’ve had to pay out £770m to settle an unfair pay fuck up caused by previous Labour administrations. Not many cities could lose that sort of money without there being consequences.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
How the f*ck is banning all pets going to save the environment? Banning all travel writers flying would have more impact.
Actually it wouldn't. There are maybe 200 travel writers in the UK? As in: people who travel consistently to write for the papers. Not just the odd gig now and again
There are 30 million UK pets, and their carbon footprint is enormous. Probably a million times bigger than the poor put-upon travel hack
Owning one big dog, in terms of annual carbon emissions, is as bad as owning and driving a SUV for a year
And that's IGNORING all the other annoyances, the dog shit spreading disease, the dogs that rip the faces off of kids in Liverpool
Say what you like about Simon Calder, go-to travel guru of the Independent, he doesn't go around savaging people in parks
Ah, but what about all the millions you tempt into flying off to far-flung locations? Or maybe travel writers don't influence travel habits?
The positive mental health benefits of pets are incalculable, think how much your mooted pet ban would increase loneliness and depression.
Get a fucking human friend. Really. It's not hard. People who solely rely on pets for company - looking at you, @IanB2 - are pathetic losers who are too charmless to have human friends. Their environment-destroying dogs should be shot and they should be forced to live under skips in Newent
I'd class this as trying too hard, so not believable. Not least because if you think only people without friends have pets you're insane, since a cursory glance at virtually everyone with a pet would disprove it. Pets add something different to human friends, they're not a replacement for them.
I thought the line "should be forced to live under skips in Newent" was a giveaway that I might not be entirely serious
There IS a serious point here, people who bang on about the environment so often have a pet or multiple pets, and somehow don't realise the harm they are hypocritically doing - in a plenitude of ways - but I wasn't really trying to make it. I am putting off the moment when I need to work, pack, get organised - for a trip
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
How the f*ck is banning all pets going to save the environment? Banning all travel writers flying would have more impact.
Actually it wouldn't. There are maybe 200 travel writers in the UK? As in: people who travel consistently to write for the papers. Not just the odd gig now and again
There are 30 million UK pets, and their carbon footprint is enormous. Probably a million times bigger than the poor put-upon travel hack
Owning one big dog, in terms of annual carbon emissions, is as bad as owning and driving a SUV for a year
And that's IGNORING all the other annoyances, the dog shit spreading disease, the dogs that rip the faces off of kids in Liverpool
Say what you like about Simon Calder, go-to travel guru of the Independent, he doesn't go around savaging people in parks
I'm still waiting for Calder to get a fatal case of Covid so I can win the PB death pool.
What's the prize, btw?
I've still got Trump. You never know, I live in hope.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
How the f*ck is banning all pets going to save the environment? Banning all travel writers flying would have more impact.
Actually it wouldn't. There are maybe 200 travel writers in the UK? As in: people who travel consistently to write for the papers. Not just the odd gig now and again
There are 30 million UK pets, and their carbon footprint is enormous. Probably a million times bigger than the poor put-upon travel hack
Owning one big dog, in terms of annual carbon emissions, is as bad as owning and driving a SUV for a year
And that's IGNORING all the other annoyances, the dog shit spreading disease, the dogs that rip the faces off of kids in Liverpool
Say what you like about Simon Calder, go-to travel guru of the Independent, he doesn't go around savaging people in parks
Ah, but what about all the millions you tempt into flying off to far-flung locations? Or maybe travel writers don't influence travel habits?
The positive mental health benefits of pets are incalculable, think how much your mooted pet ban would increase loneliness and depression.
Get a fucking human friend. Really. It's not hard. People who solely rely on pets for company - looking at you, @IanB2 - are pathetic losers who are too charmless to have human friends. Their environment-destroying dogs should be shot and they should be forced to live under skips in Newent
Pah, you big softie! Get the owners to hold their dogs as they're shot and you get two for the price of one.
The government doesn't care about state schools because they mostly don't use them and neither do their donors. Other people's kids. Their priority is protecting their own interests so their first instinct is how to not spend any money, not how to keep kids safe. If one of these schools collapses you're looking at another Aberfan. Incredible that they seem willing to risk that. Other people's kids.
Absurd hyperbole.
You want absurd hyperbole you go and look at people bloating about Labour taking away private schools' tax dodge, like it was the end of the world. We are talking here about children's actual lives being put at risk amid an extraordinary culture of complacency. I couldn't hold this government in any lower regard already, and this latest story shocks even me.
Bloating is good, like one of those beasties that inflates in the face of a threat I can certainly see that’s what red faced puffed up Tories would do.
Autocorrect obviously has a problem with blovating! (it just tried to change that one to bloating too).
Isn’t it bloviating? You are missing the “I” hence the autocorrect
I am surprised that there are still people who don't know that walking a dog is a good way to meet people, and, sometimes, make new friends. (Years ago, a woman I dated briefly observed that, early in getting to know a man, she often ended up in pet stores. The reasons for that are, I hope, obvious.)
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
How the f*ck is banning all pets going to save the environment? Banning all travel writers flying would have more impact.
Actually it wouldn't. There are maybe 200 travel writers in the UK? As in: people who travel consistently to write for the papers. Not just the odd gig now and again
There are 30 million UK pets, and their carbon footprint is enormous. Probably a million times bigger than the poor put-upon travel hack
Owning one big dog, in terms of annual carbon emissions, is as bad as owning and driving a SUV for a year
And that's IGNORING all the other annoyances, the dog shit spreading disease, the dogs that rip the faces off of kids in Liverpool
Say what you like about Simon Calder, go-to travel guru of the Independent, he doesn't go around savaging people in parks
I'm still waiting for Calder to get a fatal case of Covid so I can win the PB death pool.
What's the prize, btw?
I've still got Trump. You never know, I live in hope.
On improving education: It doesn't all happen in schools. Obviously.
And not all the teachers need to have formal training. For example: "Growing up with a dog can teach kids a lot—responsibility, empathy, logistics, and fun. Kids who grow up with dogs often report loving their dogs more than they love their siblings! Dogs are sources of unconditional love, support, and a respite from the difficulties even young children face.
I think that it is easier to learn how to get along with most dogs than most humans -- and that the lessons learned from getting along with dogs often apply to getting along with humans.
Doctor dog is also very good for exercise and getting kids out in the fresh air and away from screens.
The rules should apply to the owners. When owners or handlers of these dogs get the same sentence when they assault a person or other animal as they would get if they did the assault themselves with gun or knife then we would have a more effective law than banning specific breeds.
Malmesbury - You may like this bit from Michael Hayden's "Playing to the Edge". When Obama objected to the lengths of the intelligence briefings he was getting, one of the intelligence people suggested they present him with haikus.
I am surprised that there are still people who don't know that walking a dog is a good way to meet people, and, sometimes, make new friends. (Years ago, a woman I dated briefly observed that, early in getting to know a man, she often ended up in pet stores. The reasons for that are, I hope, obvious.)
If memory serves that was the plot of a romcom some years back... 😀
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
Why not go the other way? Define ones like Ian's dog (what a sweetie!) as ok and all others as illegal.
Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Banning these awful dogs is a no-brainer tho. Because eventually they WILL do something tragic to multiple kids and it will finish various political careers
Three days ago:
How the f*ck is banning all pets going to save the environment? Banning all travel writers flying would have more impact.
Actually it wouldn't. There are maybe 200 travel writers in the UK? As in: people who travel consistently to write for the papers. Not just the odd gig now and again
There are 30 million UK pets, and their carbon footprint is enormous. Probably a million times bigger than the poor put-upon travel hack
Owning one big dog, in terms of annual carbon emissions, is as bad as owning and driving a SUV for a year
And that's IGNORING all the other annoyances, the dog shit spreading disease, the dogs that rip the faces off of kids in Liverpool
Say what you like about Simon Calder, go-to travel guru of the Independent, he doesn't go around savaging people in parks
Ah, but what about all the millions you tempt into flying off to far-flung locations? Or maybe travel writers don't influence travel habits?
The positive mental health benefits of pets are incalculable, think how much your mooted pet ban would increase loneliness and depression.
Get a fucking human friend. Really. It's not hard. People who solely rely on pets for company - looking at you, @IanB2 - are pathetic losers who are too charmless to have human friends. Their environment-destroying dogs should be shot and they should be forced to live under skips in Newent
Pah, you big softie! Get the owners to hold their dogs as they're shot and you get two for the price of one.
Even Adolf Hitler had enough charm to have friends. Apparently.
Why do you always hijack threads with narratives that may be of critical importance (like the American Bully XL story) but are totally out of context with the header? I know no one follows threads any more, but your interjections are on the whole tangential. You do it for every thread, before and after your self imposed exile.
The new Government supporting line is quite remarkable. This government are s***, but any alternative government might also be almost as s***. Not the greatest selling point for an incumbent.
You do realise it’s my job to hijack threads and send them off in directions I find more interesting, or just more bizarre/sleazy/provocative? The moderators give me a small stipend for this purpose
Well that's fair enough. I was simply asking.
In this instance I am actually quite sincere with my hijacking. I find the XL Bully story politically strange. It seems an obvious win for the Tories/Labour to ban these evil dogs. Polls show it would be highly popular. Almost everyone hates the dogs
Yet neither party will commit to it. I’ve heard one explanation is that the RSPCA is against banning, but does the RSPCA run the government? AND Labour?
So I’m wondering if the combined political wisdom of PB can offer a better explanation. Is there a small but critical constituency of murder-dog owners in marginals, or something?
Given that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, is quite literally the law school textbook example of a terrible piece of legislation, what *exactly* do you propose be banned?
There must be ways of defining them (genetics?) because - ironically - the RSPCA’s pet insurance refuses to insure them. Coz they are intrinsically dangerous. So use the RSPCA’s very own definition - and ban them
The precise definition of a particular dog breed was the root of the problem with the DDA 1991. Defining a breed for the purposes of denying insurance, requires a very different standard to a definition that can be used to prosecute people.
And yet Australia has a highly successful, popular ban on XL Bullies - and others - framed this way:
“Australia has a ban on aggressive dog breeds that were specifically bred for fighting. Importing these breeds to Australia is not permitted by law. This ban is in place to safeguard the public and other animals. Dog breeds that are banned in Australia are:
Pit Bull Terrier breeds, including American Pit Bull Terrier Dogo Argentino Fila Brasileiro Japanese Tosa Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario The ban also extends to mix breeds of these breeds and to dogs that display any visible characteristics of the breeds mentioned above.”
Pass a law that says all dogs must be licensed and insured. Owners can then be prosecuted if dog is not insured. Market forces will then disincentivize ownership of Bad Dogs. Easy.
In my time in Switzerland I bought dogs, they all had to be registered with the Mairie each year and you received a different coloured and shaped tag for each year which had to be visible on their colour. The registration fee also covered an insurance so it was easy for police etc to see if a dog wasn’t registered.
In order to first register them however you had to have them pass a behaviour test with a licensed tester, and you definitely needed obedience lessons first to pass test, and were allowed a certain number of failures only.
A good, although time consuming, way off controlling who has dogs and the behaviour of dog and owner and if you weren’t prepared to put the time and effort in then you shouldn’t be allowed a dog anyway - cuts down trend buying.
--snip-- Personally I’d ban all pets to save the environment, but I accept this is a *slightly niche* position
Somedays I think like that. But the next day I will think "What's the big deal about landfill? Scotland is not short of big empty holes in the ground like old mines and old quarries"
Actually the UK is running out of holes in the ground. In suthern England, I believe they actually dig holes so they can make more money filling them in with rubbish than selling the stone.
Comments
NEW THREAD.
What I would accept is that Glaswegians, much as I love them and our city, are clatty bastards. They moan about fly tipping and litter without having a good long look in the mirror. The council are a bit of a mess, but hardly surprising as they’ve had to pay out £770m to settle an unfair pay fuck up caused by previous Labour administrations. Not many cities could lose that sort of money without there being consequences.
There IS a serious point here, people who bang on about the environment so often have a pet or multiple pets, and somehow don't realise the harm they are hypocritically doing - in a plenitude of ways - but I wasn't really trying to make it. I am putting off the moment when I need to work, pack, get organised - for a trip
The rules should apply to the owners. When owners or handlers of these dogs get the same sentence when they assault a person or other animal as they would get if they did the assault themselves with gun or knife then we would have a more effective law than banning specific breeds.
"Agent McSweeney sent you a Haiku"
"Oh, say Hi back..."
Apparently.
In order to first register them however you had to have them pass a behaviour test with a licensed tester, and you definitely needed obedience lessons first to pass test, and were allowed a certain number of failures only.
A good, although time consuming, way off controlling who has dogs and the behaviour of dog and owner and if you weren’t prepared to put the time and effort in then you shouldn’t be allowed a dog anyway - cuts down trend buying.